You Got That Right, Ecclesiastes!

"All is vanity."
Ecclesiastes
**********************
The uproar over Harlequin Enterprises' launch of a self-publishing venture reminded me of something my father used to say. He was an honest businessman, but every once in a while, when he saw an unscrupulous competitor getting stinking rich, he would shake his head and say, "I'm in the wrong racket."

I sometimes wonder if I'm in the wrong racket too. Maybe I should have gone into vanity publishing. I'm sure I'd have made a fortune. Everyone who's gone into it has made one, so I can't blame anyone for succumbing to its allure.

And now mainstream publishing has jumped on the bandwagon, with respectable firms like religious publisher Thomas Nelson and, most recently, Harlequin Enterprises picking up the banner. The line that once sharply separated traditional publishing ("We pay you") and vanity publishing ("You pay us") has all but dissolved in this corrosive environment of fabulous riches.

My early exposure to the power of vanity occurred when I joined Scott Meredith's literary agency after graduating college. Meredith had a fee-reading operation that ran like a turbine engine. Using his agency's track record as bait - his brochure was a collage of six- and seven-digit checks paid to professional clients - Meredith attracted countless would-be authors prepared to shell out hundreds of dollars for a manuscript reading they hoped might lead to acceptance for representation and an eventual professional career. I don't believe I ever saw a book accepted for representation out of the fee-reading program in all the years I worked there. Meredith's operation made tons of money and he died a wealthy man.

Around 2000 a number of enterprising business people recognized the profit potential in self-published books utilizing digital media. (For purposes of this piece I draw no distinction between self-publication, subsidized publication and vanity publication.) Until then the most famous name in subsidy publishing was Vantage Press (which, significantly, is still going strong). But companies like iUniverse, Xlibris and an outfit called Fatbrain offered a variety of self-publication services. How well did they do?

Well, Fatbrain with its subsidiary Mighty-Words, which published technical and professional material online (someone described it as Amazon for geeks), was sold to Barnes & Noble for $64 million. Xlibris? Acquired by Random House for an undisclosed sum, then sold to Author Solutions, the vast self-publishing empire which embraces iUniverse, Author House, Wordclay, Inkubook and Canadian vanity publisher Trafford Press. Kevin Weiss, CEO of Author Solutions, projects $100 million in revenue in 2009. Last year, Author Solutions released more than 21,000 new titles, according to Mediabistro, "including one out of every 20 new titles put into distribution in the U.S. Overall, ASI's catalog now includes more than 120,000 titles from more than 85,000 authors." Author Solutions is partnering with Harlequin in its soon-to-be-renamed Horizons self-publication program.

But there's more. Publishers Marketplace publisher Michael Cader recently reported that "Ebook distributor and online self-publishing platform Smashwords announced late Friday that BarnesandNoble.com will sell titles from the company as part of its new 'premium feed.' Smashwords, which says they publish about 2,600 titles electronically, will sell to BN.com at a traditional discount... Founder Mark Coker says that 'additional distribution relationships are forthcoming.' He says that 'until today, it was difficult if not impossible for independent authors and publishers to gain such mainstream digital distibution.'"

Yet another company, Scribd, calls itself "the largest social publishing company in the world, the website where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents." Scribd boasts "10 million documents published" and "5 million Scribd document reader embeds." Last spring it was reported that Scribd was partnering "with a number of major publishers, including Random House, Simon & Schuster, Workman Publishing Co., Berrett-Koehler, Thomas Nelson, and Manning Publications, to legally offer some of their content to Scribd’s community free of charge. Publishers have begun to add an array of content to Scribd’s library, including full-length novels as well as briefer teaser excerpts."

With so much money being thrown at subsidy publishers, and with the blessing of mainstream publishing, the evolution of vanity from the margins to the center of the publishing universe is complete. The erosion of traditional gatekeepers like reviewers, critics, newspaper book editors, and other refined literary tastemakers makes it clear why even a conservative publisher might lose its head over the prospect of all that money - and be tempted to go into another racket.

Richard Curtis

If Amazon Reviews are Meaningless, Why Are Authors Paying to Have Them Written?

About two years ago we asked Do Amazon Reviews Count? and wondered why we saw so few of them quoted by respectable publishers. "We live in an age when peer review is meaningful if not significant," I noted, thinking about the fabulously successful Zagat restaurant review model utilizing the opinions of our very own next-door neighbors.

If the same group-sourcing dynamic could be applied to books, we could see a revolution in the way books are reviewed to match the way they are digitally delivered. If Amazon could assemble a cadre of reviewers to replace the publishing establishment's phalanx of critics, endorsers and other brand-bestowing literary Gatekeepers, the 21st century's paradigm shift would be that much closer to total.

But it all depends on the integrity of Amazon's reviewers, just as our assessment of a restaurant's ambiance, service and food depend on the integrity of the men and women who write it up for Zagat. So, it was with no small measure of concern that I read a blog by Scott MacDonald in Quill & Quire calling our attention to a website called readerspoils.com that arranges for authors to pay for reviews on Amazon. "Yes, that’s right," MacDonald writes, "for just $15 U.S. you can get a completely 'honest' review of your book posted to Amazon in mere days!" In fact, he adds, while $15 is the base price, the site "is apparently selling reviews only in bulk quantities: 100 reviews for $1,400 and 500 reviews for a mere $6,500."

The site's owner is a self-published promoter named Clark Covington (pictured left) who describes himself as "a book writing fool. I’ve written several nonfiction books, and have a fiction novel in the works." For many agents the redundant phrase "fiction novel" instantly identifies the author as a writing fool, but we'll let that pass. Because when it comes to P. T. Barnum pitch, Covington is nobody's fool. Here it is:

"Up until now the publishing industry kept a tight lock on their book reviewers, paying them large sums of money and giving them many freebies to urge them to review books for well known authors. The time has finally come where you, the self published author, can get quality, real life book reviews for the price of a couple of tickets to the movies..."

You are then instructed to select how many reviews you want, prepay for them, and enter information about your book, whereupon "You receive an email from us when all of your reviews are posted on Amazon, usually within a week of your purchase." In case you're still on the fence, Covington furnishes sample Amazon reviews including video testimonials."I admit it, this sounds unbelievable," Covington adds, beating us to the punch. "This sounds too remarkable to be true, this is the type of thing that makes you want to call your local attorney general and tell them a scam is brewing." Covington claims to have access to 5,000 reviewers. How does he line them up?

"With a few strokes of luck and a hearty bribe, that’s how," he boasts. Readers interested in reviewing can register on the site, and apparently there is some sort of consideration. I came across one complaint by a reviewer who claims to have gotten stiffed.

This operation is so patently humbug that it would be falling-down-funny if it were not for the stain it casts on the potential honesty and integrity of Amazon's review system. Yes, it is true that the imperfect old review system is also subject to manipulation and even corruption. But Amazon represents an opportunity to get it right, to hear the recommendations of intelligent peers and neighbors about books that interest us. If we lose our trust in their honesty - the Quill & Quire article is called One more reason not to trust reader reviews - we also lose our literary value system.

Many of us grew up in a world where there were legitimate books and there were vanity books and everyone knew which ones to take seriously thanks to the tastemakers and gatekeepers. If they were biased, if their judgment was flawed, if they sometimes exalted the worthless and trashed the sublime, we lived with it because it was the only system we had. But now there is another way, and as we move into a socially networked future most of us are willing to give it a chance - unless we suspect the game is rigged.

Richard Curtis

Why Don't Agents Want to Play? Amazon Flies a Bunch to Seattle to Find Out

Last week Amazon flew a dozen top New York book agents to Seattle. The purpose was to debrief their attitudes towards e-books in general and Kindle in particular. After reading an account of the meetings and festivities, I did some rough calculations and figure Amazon spent upwards of $10,000 to pick those splendid brains. I estimated $600 per agent for round trip airfare, $150 for hotel accommodations, and $200 for food and incidentals. All multiplied by twelve.

I could have saved Amazon all that money. I've known for ten years what's been holding agents back from plunging into e-book pool, and in fact I can tell it to you in one word: advances. The agents have been waiting for something they can identify with the traditional business model. And advances are as traditional as Thanksgiving turkeys.

Who can blame the agents for being standoffish? Picture a macher like Lynn Nesbit or Bob Gottlieb calling an author to say "I have great news for you! I've made a deal for e-book rights to your new book plus half a dozen of your old ones!" And you say "Great! What are they paying?" And they say "Um, nothing, actually." Oh, that's really going to bind them to their clients!

The truth is that up to now the infant business could not afford advances. As Mike Shatzkin brilliantly pointed out in a speech at last spring's BEA, the digital revolution has been costly for publishers confronting a tear-down of an infrastructure based on something tangible and replacing it with a virtual one.

However, now that the old indusry is getting with the program and accepting the need to heavily reinvest, we will see a transition into that most familiar of publishing concepts, the advance against royalties.

But that raises an interesting question: who exactly is going to be paying these advances? Because e-rights have been close to worthless for agents who have battened for decades on six- and seven-digit deals (even a few for eight digits), they have simply thrown the e-rights into their deals with publishers for no extra front-money. There are signs however that independent e-book houses are starting to offer advances. When that becomes more of a rule than an exception, major publishers will be forced to compete.

And if they decline to compete? Then you will see agents pushing to split e-book rights away from the basic rights package they negotiate with publishers, and e-book will take its place as a reserved right like movie and audio. In fact, audio offers a perfect parallel: at the beginning of the audio revolution, authors and their agents tossed audio rights into a book deal for nothing. Who cared about audio? But in time those rights became so valuable - they are now a billion dollar business - that, today, no self-respecting agent would think of including audio rights in a deal unless the publisher was prepared to sweeten the advance.

Is this the message that the Magnificent Dozen communicated to their Seattle hosts? I hope so. There's a ton of great material being held off the market by agents waiting to hear that one delicious word that will make them open their gates.

Richard Curtis

What Can Publishers Learn from Cory Doctorow?

The short answer? Everything.

Doctorow, whose brash and sometimes subversive-sounding publishing strategies have made him a folk hero to his fans and generated intense controversy in the mainstream publishing community, has laid siege to the very ramparts of that community by wagering that he's at least as good a publisher as they are. Maybe, even, a better one. And he's thrown down the gauntlet in the industry's very own trade publication, Publishers Weekly.

Doctorow describes his undertaking as an experiment. The book is a collection consisting almost completely of reprints of previously published stories. It's called With a Little Help and it's his third collection. "It will," he declares, "be available for free on the day it is released."

"Free" notwithstanding, what he hopes to accomplish is, simply, to make money publishing his book, or at least not lose any. He will achieve this by using the same contrarian (or at least counterintuitive) tactics that have succeeded with previous books, including giving them away.

How will we know if the experiment is a success or failure? Doctorow will chronicle it as it unfolds in a monthly column for PW, the first of which appeared in the October 19th issue. His entertaining article is a canny template for a publishing program that utilizes both print and digital media. Of course, this is something that every traditional publisher is trying to do, but here's the problem with every traditional publisher: they're all hobbled by a brick and mortar mindset (and overhead) that makes it impossible to achieve what one determined individual can do - at least, one bold and determined individual named Cory Doctorow. Though he acknowledges lots of help from his friends, he also, obviously, holds with Rudyard Kipling's observation: "Down to Gehenna, or up to the Throne, He travels fastest who travels alone."

Doctorow's template for success includes:

• Low overhead: My capital expenditures have to be as low as possible. In the ideal world, every object I make available will either cost nothing to produce or will be physically instantiated only after it has been ordered and paid for.
• E-book: free, in a wide variety of formats: I have always released my books in three formats (text, HTML and PDF formatted for two-column portrait printout), and my readers have always followed up by converting them to an astonishing long tail of other formats for their preferred readers.
• Audiobook: free, in a wide variety of formats: I've always taken great pleasure in reading my works aloud. I've done 150-plus installments of a podcast of me doing just that. But I'm no pro. However, many of my friends are pro voice actors, and I've called on them to each record one of the stories from the book.
• Donations: whatever happens: I have never solicited donations for my works before, despite the urgings of True Believers who would like to see my publisher cut out of the loop, because I wanted to be sure my publisher was in the loop. This time around, I'm the publisher, so let's see what people are interested in giving.
• Print-on-Demand trade paperback: $16 (approximately; price TBD) Lulu.com produces beautiful books, objects that look every bit as good as the Lightning Source trade paperbacks that Ingram will sell you, provided you know what you're doing when you design them. A designer, I am not. But John Berry, who designed my essay collection, Content, for Tachyon, is.
• I'm also offering a custom-cover package for people running events or giveaways: for a setup fee (I'm thinking $300, but that's not fixed in stone), I'll sell you as many copies at Lulu's cost as you'd like with your own cover on it.
• Premium hardcover edition: $250, limited run of 250 copies:My office is in Clerkenwell, in London, close to several artisanal binders and some damned fine printers. My favorite binder is the venerable, family-owned Wyvern Bindery, which has agreed to bind a fine limited edition of With a Little Help for £20 a copy, in quantities of 20.
• Commission a new story: $10,000 (one only):I probably underpriced this, but it's too late now. The idea was to give my readers the chance to commission a story to be added to the collection at a later date—thus benefiting from an additional burst of publicity and possibly selling a second copy of the “expanded edition” to people who wanted to get the compleat text.
• Advertisements: TBD: Since the paperbacks are print-on-demand, and the electronic files can be trivially modified, I'm going to sell a single ad unit on a time-limited basis: a half-page, or 500 pixels square, or five lines of text (depending on the image), at a price to be determined, in month-long increments.
• Donations of books: TBD: Since the publication of Little Brother in spring 2008, I've run a donation program for my books wherein I ask librarians, teachers and people who work in other “worthy” institutions (halfway houses, shelters, hospitals, etc.) to put their names down for free copies. I publish this list online and mention it in the introductions to all the digital copies of the works.
  

Doctorow sometimes seems to have a chip on his shoulder, and some skeptics will try to knock it off. In fact blogger Michael Stackpole has spilled gallons of e-ink to do that very thing, including calling Doctorow a "snake-oil salesman" and his experiment "rubbish". Entrenched establishmentarians will also try to take Doctorow down. That would be a mistake. They would be far better off studying his strategies and learning from them, something he makes easy to do with his wit and articulateness. I wish him not only to not lose money but to make a bundle. Maybe that will take the starch out of some publishers that are not just stuck in the last century but are proud of it.

Bravo to Publishers Weekly for offering Doctorow a forum. Read Doctorow's Project: With a Little Help. I can't wait to see how it all turns out.

Richard Curtis

Macmillan Issues New Contract Boilerplate for All Divisions, E-Royalty Lower than RH, S&S, Other Majors

Agents are poring over a new contract boilerplate issued by Macmillan, parent company of St. Martin's, Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt, Picador, and Tor among others. The contract files were emailed to agents on Monday (October 26th) with a covering note from Macmillan CEO John Sargent (link at bottom of this post).

Sargent highlights key elements in the homogenization of the contract forms, namely: 1) a new across-the-board (all Macmillan divisions) e-book royalty; 2) a new across-the-board direct-to-consumer royalty; and 3) enhanced promotional and Internet marketing initiatives.

The e-book royalty will come as the biggest surprise to e-book royalty watchers, as it goes contrary to the trend (which some think is a polite word for something darker) among major publishers to pay 25% of net e-book receipts to authors. Unfortunately, Macmillan offers even less than that - 20%.

It will be interesting to see if Macmillan will hold the line at an e-book royalty below that of its playmates such as Random House and Simon & Schuster, who in the last year have reduced their e-book royalties to 25% of net receipts. It will be even more interesting to see if the agents fall into the trap of accepting 25% as the "standard" e-book royalty. Who says that's all it should be? (Full disclosure, E-Reads pays 50% of net receipts to its authors, and always has.)

As for direct-to-consumer sales, the new royalty is 10% of net receipts on the first 10,000 copies and 15% thereafter. The standard for as long as anyone can remember has been 5%. That low number was created in an era of mail order of hard copies, a cost-intensive process that was often generated by full color magazine ads, coupons, and other expensive forms of solicitation. This process will now yield to cheaper Web solicitations and streamlined delivery systems.

Buried deep in this change of royalty is the intriguing prospect that Macmillan might be moving toward a more aggressive approach to selling its books direct to consumers, a strategy from which many publishers have shrunk out of fear of upsetting Barnes & Noble and Amazon by competing with them. There is good reason to shrink, as Penguin discovered in April 2008 when Amazon threw an elbow at them over this very issue.

Nevertheless, if Macmillan is any bellwether, publishers may be gearing up for a push on direct-to-consumer sales. The prize? Nothing short of survival. See Direct Sales: Publishing's Last Stand.

Here's the link to Sargent's letter, reproduced in full.

Richard Curtis

The E-book Reader That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Do you know how to pronounce Scribd? Does it rhyme with "scribed"? Or "fibbed"? I've even heard it called "Scrib-dee".

How about Que, Plastic Logic's forthcoming e-book reader? Is it pronounced "Kay"? or "Cue"?

Next is the Flepia, Fujitsu's e-book reader. Is it Fleh-pia or Flee-pia?

Or the UK e-book reader called the Cool-er. As we recently wondered (see Another E-Book Reader with a Dumb Name), is that pronounced "color" (the device screen is black and white by the way)? Or do you pronounce it like the refrigerated water dispenser commonly found in business offices, suggesting it's cooler than the Kindle? Or maybe you come to a full glottal stop, thus: Cool. Er.

If I were a technology company investing millions of dollars to develop a device or service or product, it would make sense for me to ask a focus group to review it. And to make sure that focus group is stocked with people with dirty minds. Like Charles Curtis's.

Charles Curtis believes there is money to be made helping corporations avoid selecting embarrassing names for their products. He would call his service "Double Entendre Consulting". "The concept," he explains, "is this: say you're a startup with a company name, logo, slogan but you're nervous that there's something hidden in it that will make you a laughingstock. So you pay my company a fee and I, along with my fellow gross-minded colleagues, will review your selections and tell you if they're clean or if they will become fodder for viral hilarity on the Internet."

For example? "If Kids Exchange had hired us, we would have informed them that their URL, kidsexchange.net, spelled out something very different from what they intended. Same goes for an outfit called Who Represents? Their URL is Whorepresents.com.

"This idea came up in college when I used to frequent a fast food joint that prided itself on making great salads. Unfortunately, their slogan was, 'The Original Salad Tossers'. If you don't understand why that's so hilarious, click here. When I went back there years later, the slogan on their napkins had changed, so perhaps someone had informed them that sickos such as myself were rolling on the floor every time we mentioned their slogan. And teabagging? The Republicans, should have consulted me before they began advocating that practice. Click here to learn why."

Full disclosure Number 1: I sired this person. Full disclosure #2: if he does go into the double entendre business I intend to become a serious investor, because I think there's a fortune to be made in exposing dumb names.

And that brings us to The Nook.

Charles does not mention what he would have said to Barnes & Noble had they consulted with him about The Nook, BN.Com's newly minted and named e-book reader. But he might consider employing a blogger named Charissa, who wrote the following Open Letter to Barnes & Noble:

Dear Barnes & Noble,

What were you thinking?

Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to name you new E-Reader device the nook? I mean, really? Do you know anything about pop culture and slang from the last few decades? I would love to know what kind of focus groups you used to demo the name and marketing, or did you use focus groups at all? Because I don’t know who wouldn’t have told you this is a bad idea.

And did you even give a thought to what your booksellers are going to have to endure, answering questions about the nook(ie)? Not to mention all the jokes they’re going to be subject to. Trust me, there is an endless supply of nook jokes out there, from the innocent “nook, nook” jokes to more suggestive humor.

Not to mention the fact that within less than 24 hours of the nook’s announcement, some anonymous B&N employees have already begun re-writing Limp Bizkit’s “Nookie” in honor of the nook. Do you realize how obnoxious it is to have the words, “And you can take you Kindle and stick it up your…” stuck in your head all day long?

And it’s really bad that the device itself doesn’t even come out until the end of November and I’m already having trouble using the name in a sentence with a straight face. We still have more than a month of nook jokes to go.

I realize it’s too late to change the name now, but I really hope next time you’re a little more careful when selecting the name of something as monumental to the company as this device apparently is.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen

PS – If you were to, say, give out free nooks to all your employees in an effort to encourage them to familiarize themselves with the device for customer questions, then I would be more than willing to forgive you for this minor naming indiscretion.

We wish the best of success to the makers of the Flepia, Que, Cool-er and Nook. They should be aware, though, that had they hired Double Entendre Consulting they might have avoided becoming, in the words of W. S. Gilbert, "a source of innocent merriment."

Richard Curtis, President of E-Reads (which is pronounced "Ee-Reeds", not "Eh-Reds")

The Medium is The Screen. The Message is Distraction

"My own research shows that people are continually distracted when working with digital information. They switch simple activities an average of every three minutes (e.g. reading email or IM) and switch projects about every 10 and a half minutes. It’s just not possible to engage in deep thought about a topic when we’re switching so rapidly."

That observation was made by Gloria Mark, a University of California professor who studies human-computer interaction. But it is also the collective verdict of five experts invited by the New York Times to participate in a debate entitled Does the Brain Like E-Books?. We briefly posted about it the other day but after examining the transcript we feel the contents of the "debate" deserve closer attention. The reason we put "debate" in quotation marks is that there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the conclusion that "watching books", as we call it, compromises our ability to immerse ourselves in books. This is particularly true for children.

Sandra Aamodt, former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, writes that "people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent... Distractions abound online — costing time and interfering with the concentration needed to think about what you read."

Concentrating on serious reading and avoiding distraction "depends on the user's strength of character," she says. Her comment reflects the theme of Distraction by Mark Curtis (no relation), the book pictured here, namely, that "a new sense of discipline is required to prevent us drowning in distraction."

Maryanne Wolf, a professor of child development at Tufts and author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain, points out that "No one really knows the ultimate effects of an immersion in a digital medium on the young developing brain." But "my greatest concern is that the young brain will never have the time (in milliseconds or in hours or in years) to learn to go deeper into the text after the first decoding, but rather will be pulled by the medium to ever more distracting information, sidebars, and now, perhaps, videos (in the new vooks)."

"The child’s imagination and children’s nascent sense of probity and introspection are no match for a medium that creates a sense of urgency to get to the next piece of stimulating information. The attention span of children may be one of the main reasons why an immersion in on-screen reading is so engaging, and it may also be why digital reading may ultimately prove antithetical to the long-in-development, reflective nature of the expert reading brain as we know it."

Finally, David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University, writes that

The most important ongoing change to reading itself in today’s online environment is the cheapening of the word. In teaching college students to write, I tell them (as teachers always have) to make every word count, to linger on each phrase until it is right, to listen to the sound of each sentence.

But these ideas seem increasingly bizarre in a world where (in any decent-sized gathering of students) you can practically see the text messages buzz around the room and bounce off the walls, each as memorable as a housefly; where the narrowing time between writing for and publishing on the Web is helping to kill the art of editing by crushing it to death. The Internet makes words as cheap and as significant as Cheese Doodles

As e-books move out of their infancy and into a dominant role in the reading life of our society, it is imperative that we recognize the significant psychological differences between reading on screen and reading on paper.

Professor Gloria Mark, deeply concerned about the distractions engendered by screen media, expresses her own preference: "I’d much rather curl up in an easy chair with a paper book. It’s not only an escape into a world of literature but it’s an escape from my digital devices."

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by The New York Times.

"Watching" Books on E-Devices Debated in NYTimes

A year ago in a posting called Watching Books I wrote,

Reading text on a screen without sound, color, or movement, one develops the uneasy feeling that something is missing. We wonder, Is that all there is? I’m not a psychologist but it seems more than likely that we are bringing to text viewed on screens the same expectations we bring to television, movie and computer screens. Indeed, something is missing! How can we not be disappointed - even, God help us, bored - when these blocks of words fail to stimulate the same intense response as a YouTube video? We are trying to extract a linear experience out of a nonlinear medium

Today the New York Times, in an online feature called "Room for Debate", began exploring the psychological issues arising out of reading e-books, touching in depth on many of the issues I explored in that first stab at understanding the new medium in which we have all been immersed.

"Is there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper?" the Times's editors ask. "Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?"

Participating in the discussion/debate are:

* Alan Liu, English professor
* Sandra Aamodt, author, “Welcome to Your Brain”
* Maryanne Wolf, professor of child development
* David Gelernter, computer scientist
* Gloria Mark, professor of informatics

Does the Brain Like E-Books? is a significant must-read debate that may well affect the way we read in the 21st century.

Richard Curtis

Sergey Brin Sticks it to Google Settlement Critics

Google co-founder Sergey Brin has posted an op-ed editorial in the New York Times urging the book community not to lose what could well be a once-in-history opportunity to rescue the content of millions of book from obscurity.

"The vast majority of books ever written are not accessible to anyone except the most tenacious researchers at premier academic libraries," he points out. "Books written after 1923 quickly disappear into a literary black hole. With rare exceptions, one can buy them only for the small number of years they are in print. After that, they are found only in a vanishing number of libraries and used book stores. As the years pass, contracts get lost and forgotten, authors and publishers disappear, the rights holders become impossible to track down."

Inevitably, the few remaining copies of the books are left to deteriorate slowly or are lost to fires, floods and other disasters. While I was at Stanford in 1998, floods damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of books. Unfortunately, such events are not uncommon — a similar flood happened at Stanford just 20 years prior. You could read about it in The Stanford-Lockheed Meyer Library Flood Report, published in 1980, but this book itself is no longer available.

Brin recounts other tragic losses of historical and literary heritage including the library at Alexandria and, of more recent vintage, the United States Library of Congress.

Assuring us that us that "nothing in this agreement precludes any other company or organization from pursuing their own similar effort," Brin reminds us that "Today, if you want to access a typical out-of-print book, you have only one choice — fly to one of a handful of leading libraries in the country and hope to find it in the stacks."

Brin concludes with the hope that destruction of significant libraries "never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."

Read Brin's editorial in full in A Library to Last Forever. E-Reads supports the settlement worked out in good faith by the author and publishing community seeking to protect our precious legacy of books. And we take a dim view of the motives of some who have criticized the settlement simply because they didn't think of it first and didn't bestir themselves to do anything about orphaned books until Google demonstrated there's money to be made in them. For more about that, you can click here.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.

Your Book is Just Words? Sorry, Chum, We're Rejecting It

Some ten years ago, in an article entitled Author? What's an Author? I asked, "How can you possibly call yourself an author if you can't process digitized full-motion video signals on your computer, accelerate your image-compression manager to thirty frames per second, and enhance your video with full stereo sound?"

The day is coming—and much sooner than you may think—when authors will no longer be able to define themselves simply as creators of literary works. As electronic technology hurtles too fast for even futurists to keep up with, a generation of readers is emerging that will not accept text unless it is interactively married to other media. The twenty-first century's definition of "author" will be as far from today's definition as you are from the town scribe of yore.

That day has come.

I didn't have a word for the medium I foresaw, but last spring someone coined it "vook", a hybrid (video + book = "vook") blending traditional books with audio, video and other digital media, a little like the centaur pictured here. The term is so new that if you google it you'll be asked "Do you mean book?".

Today's news brings tidings that Simon & Schuster "is working with a multimedia partner to release four 'vooks,' which intersperse videos throughout electronic text that can be read — and viewed — online or on an iPhone or iPod Touch." Mokoto Rich, who covers the book scene (soon to be "vook scene"?) for the New York Times, describes it in Curling Up With Hybrid Books, Videos Included, which the newspaper's editors felt deserved front page status - front page, that is, of the entire newspaper. Rich quotes Judith Curr, publisher of S&S imprint Atria Books and a prime mover behind S&S's vook releases: “You can’t just be linear anymore with your text.”

For all who toil in the two dimensions of the printed word, that's a pretty depressing statement. The paradigm shift that seemed like a science fictioneer's fantasy not long ago is now upon us and what was a simple world of Me Author/You Publisher has become a white water rapids of identities in crisis, including those of literary agents. Agents get agita when they're not sure who's the seller and who's the buyer, and digital technology is dissolving the barrier between the two like battery acid.

Is the game over? Is it Death of the Book Time?

In my opinion? Not even close.

Let's keep a few things in perspective. The most important is the distinction between reading and watching. Intoxicated though publishers may be with this new and admittedly exciting hybrid world, in time they will come around to the immutable truth that books - plain old linear text printed on bound sheets of white paper - offer an immersive experience for which there is no substitute. When an amazon.com reviewer of a vook proclaims "“It really makes a story more real if you know what the characters look like,” we rise up in wrathful indignation. For nothing - nothing whatsoever - makes a story more real than what we imagine the characters to look like. Viewing a video of a book, or about a book, or with a book, may be entertaining. But it is not reading. It is simply, as I have written elsewhere, Watching Books.

Any reader who has been lost in a book would not dream of breaking the spell by clicking, searching, supplementing, accessing, googling, listening or viewing. Hell, any reader who has been lost in a book does not even want to break the spell by breathing. Maybe we'll be compelled to do some surfing and clicking when we finish reading, but just as likely we simply want to digest what we've read, or think about it, or reread it, or maybe talk to someone about it.

Nothing can or will take the place of books, and nothing ever will. Vooks are cool but they do not communicate ideas, transport us to magical worlds or immerse us in wonder. Watch a vook, play with it, interact with it. When you're finished, shut your computer down and settle in with a good book.

Richard Curtis

A Corporate Colossus That Loves Dogs

In judging people it's often helpful to divide them into dog people or cat people. Can you characterize corporations the same way?

Since you probably haven't read Google's Code of Conduct you will not be aware that Google is a dog company. The preface to the Code's dog policy states,"Google's affection for our canine friends is an integral facet of our corporate culture.We like cats, but we're a dog company, so as a general rule we feel cats visiting our offices would be fairly stressed out."

Though you could argue for hours about the natures of cats and dogs, animal-lovers instinctively understand what Google means when it says it's a dog company. Most of us think of domesticated dogs as friendly, sociable, trustworthy and happy to serve mankind. For that reason, when Google declares "Don't be evil" as its guiding principle we're inclined to give it more credence than if it were the slogan of a company that behaved more unpredictably and deviously - a cat company, in other words.

Wicked?

It must be deeply distressing to Google's management to be characterized by its critics as wicked. That epithet and variations on it have recently been alleged in response to Google's aggressive initiative to digitize the world's inventory of out of print books. "Years after cracking the very code of the Web to lucrative ends," writes the New York Times's David Carr, "Google may be in the midst of trying to conjure the most complicated algorithm yet: to wit, can goodness, or at least a stated intention not to be evil, scale along with the enterprise?" Carr's article is entitled How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?

Note that Carr distinguishes between a mandate to do good and one not to do evil. The two are vastly different from one another. Hippocrates drew the distinction in his instructions to physicians: "As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm." There are also two strikingly contrasting expressions of the Golden Rule: one is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The other: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man."

Google's mission is phrased in the negative: Don't be evil rather than Do good. Why? One reason might be credibility: we tend to doubt the probity of do-gooders. But the struggle to avoid evil is universal; everybody roots for those who strive to resist temptation.

The Code

Just what does Google mean by "evil"? I'm reminded of a story about President Calvin Coolidge, a notoriously taciturn man. One Sunday as he left church a reporter asked him what the minister's sermon was about. Coolidge said "Evil." "What did the minister say about evil?" the reporter pressed. "He was against it," Coolidge replied.

It's easy to be against evil until you're asked to define it. But here's the interesting thing about Google: it does defines it. It defines it in the 15 single spaced pages of its Code of Conduct.

Here's a statement from the Preface:

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, who then build great products, which in turn attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.

Among the provisions of the Code are positions on integrity, respect, privacy, freedom of expression, drugs and alcohol, co-worker relationships, gifts, expenses, anti-bribery, confidentiality, insider trading and yes...dogs. The spirit of the document is not unlike that of the honor codes of some colleges like Haverford College or West Point. Employees are expect to read the Code thoroughly and not only to be aware of its requirements but to make sure vendors, licensees and others adhere to them as well.

Because the Code of Conduct is educational, entertaining and even inspiring, from time to time we'll excerpt some of its provisions and discuss them.

Is Scale Sinful?

It's not likely that Google's critics have read the Code, because the sin they seem to be accusing Google of - "Do not grow huge" - appears nowhere in the document. The Times's Carr puts his finger on it when he wonders whether goodness can be scaled up. Once a company becomes big can it any longer do good? Or is there one rule for large enterprises and another for small ones?

It might help to look at a small one that does the same thing as Google, Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg has been digitizing out of print books for decades. Employing volunteer labor, financed by contributions and offering its editions free or at low cost, it has functioned without raising an eyebrow since its startup in 1971. It boasts a catalog of nearly 30,000 free books and tens of thousands more available through partners and affiliates. Has anyone accused Project Gutenberg of overweening greed or untrammeled ambition?

Nobody that we're aware of.

Google on the other hand has scanned and digitized a staggering number of books, somewhere in the millions. The sheer dimension of the enterprise provokes anxiety, suspicion and jealousy. And, unlike Project Gutenberg, Google is doing it to make money, which only magnifies the hostility toward it.

So - is it possible that evil is simply a function of scale? Can Google continue to do good when, to use Shakespeare's phrase, it bestrides the world like a colossus?

How Big Is Colossal?

Those who think that iniquity is a function of size will find plenty of ammunition when they take Google's measurements. According to the investor relations page on its website, Google's 2008 gross revenues were $21.795 billion. Using statistics provided by the World Bank, that placed Google ahead of the gross national product of 90 other nations including Bolivia ($16.674 billion), Jamaica ($15.068 billion), Afghanistan ($10.170 billion) and Bermuda ($5.855 billion). In fact, Google's gross revenues were higher than the gross national products of the bottom 28 nations on the World Bank's list combined!

With resources like that at its command, a corporation bent on evil could wreak a great deal of havoc. It could finance militias, undermine governments, build arsenals. The news gives us no assurance that corporations are benign. How many companies brandish meaningless mottoes while exploiting, plundering and corrupting? It's easier to be cynical about Google's intentions than to believe that they are sincere. But - is it possible that just this once, a capitalistic behemoth will put its money where its mouth is?

E-Reads has no corporate ties to Google. But we are heavily dependent on them, and we'd be amazed if you were not as well. I certainly would feel better knowing that the company that brings me gmail, Chrome, AdWords, Picasa, Android, Blogger, Google Maps, and YouTube is not evil. Wouldn't you? Read Google's Code of Conduct and reflect.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.

Learning to Love Your ISBN Number

Michael Cairns, whose Personanondata blog covers the book industry, has declared that "The ISBN Is Dead".

Do you care?

It will come as no surprise to hear you say you don't. Is that because you're not sure you understand what ISBNs are? Would it make a difference if we told you your book's life and your writing career depended on them? If so, tarry a moment to consider them.

The acronym ISBN - commonly pronounced "IS-bin" in publishingese - stands for International Standard Book Number. Like a Social Security number, it a unique identifier. But it doesn't merely identify a book; rather, it identifies each edition of a book.

Where do ISBNs come from? Publishing companies purchase a block of them and, after assigning them to each edition of your book, register them with R.R. Bowker. "Bowker is the U.S. ISBN Agency in the United States," we are told by the ISBN official website, "responsible for assigning ISBNs as well as providing information and advice on the uses of the ISBN system to publishers and the publishing industry in general."

Once your publisher has assigned ISBN numbers to books, it produces bar codes that facilitate handling, shipping, stocking, selling, returning and every other business transaction pertaining to various editions of each book. The hardcover will have one number, the trade paperback another, the mass market paperback another, and the audio edition yet another.

This Linnean-type taxonomy was introduced in the UK and US in the late 1960s and accepted as an International Standard in 1970. It has proven a godsend to publishers, booksellers, authors, and even to readers, though the latter may not be aware of how much easier their lives have been made by the puzzling string of numbers printed in the front matter of books they purchase or by the bar codes on the cover.

The ISBN is 10 digits long, or rather has been up to recently,when the publishing industry adopted a changeover to 13 digits to tie in with bar code standards ("EAN") used to identify a all sorts of products.

Abebooks points out that there are four components of the 10 digits on your book's bar code:

Group - identifies a country, area or language area. Some publishers form language areas or regional units.

Publisher – pinpoints the specific publisher within a group. It usually designates the exact identification of the publishing house and its address.

Title - designates a particular edition of a publication of a specific publisher.

Check Digit - relies on a mathematical calculation with a modulus 11. If the check digit is "10", an "X" is used instead. The check digit helps verify the validity of an ISBN.

A 13-digit ISBN includes the same numbers as in a 10-digit ISBN with the addition of a 3 digit EAN prefix of either "978" or "979". For example: 978-1-873671-00-9.

Now that you're an expert on ISBNs, you may wish to delve into the ISBN Users Manual or the website of the US ISBN Agency and soak up all those delicious details.

Whether you do or not, perhaps you're beginning to feel a glimmer of affection for ISBNs and anxiety about Michael Cairns's assertion that they're dead. What's he getting at?

For one thing, he says, "The ISBN in its current form may not be sufficient to support the migration to a digital world." The past decade has witnessed a profusion of e-book formats from the Rocket Book and its cousin the SoftBook to Palm Pilot, Microsoft Reader, Mobipocket, Sony eReader, cell phones and others. Each format requires its own ISBN, requiring publishers to register as many as seven or eight of them plus additional ones for print and audio editions. It's a huge clerical and bookkeeping headache for publishers and no inconsequential expense, either, for ISBNs don't grow on trees.

Note that I didn't list the Kindle among the multiplicity of e-book formats, and that leads to another issue for Cairns. Some suppliers, he observes, "don't see the ISBN as relevant." Key among them is Amazon, which disdains ISBNs in favor of its own identifier, the "ASIN". He is bluntly critical of Amazon's actions, saying "they have polluted the supply chain with these numbers." Other newcomers to the publishing business have gotten on the no-ISBN bandwagon, too, creating the potential for chaos akin to pre-EU Europe with its multiplicity of languages, currencies, tolls, taxes and customs restrictions.

Cairns feels it's urgent to round up all these wild horses and get them back into the ISBN corral. "If we shrug our collective shoulders to these issues, this non-action will set a precedent from which we as a publishing industry will be unable to recover."

The ISBN standard united the industry from author royalty statement to store shelf and, while I emphasize the ISBN is far from dead, there are sufficient warning signs to suggest that the ISBN may be unable to thrive in the 21st century as it has over the past 40 yrs. As a community, we need to recognize that the ISBN may not be meeting its intended market need and that the future may make this deficiency even more stark. From an international perspective, ISO could help by reconvening a partial (or full) revision of the standard; it seems incompatible with the speed at which all industry changes that we can continue to live with a 10 year revision cycle. In my view, ISBN could benefit from an accelerated revision cycle while the result of non-action could be increasing irrelevance.

Read The ISBN Is Dead in its entirety. Then open to the front matter of the book you're reading, fix your eyes on the ISBN and think, "This is somebody's child."

Richard Curtis

New Breed of Authors Hustles Own Books to Clubs

When did book clubs become book clubs? That is, how did the book industry evolve from a business model defined by commercial reprinters like Book of the Month Club and The Literary Guild, to one heavily dependent on groups of book-loving - and book-buying - amateurs?

At whatever point we crossed the line from definition #1 to definition #2, the reading circle has become a driving force in book marketing, and the author who knows how to work the clubs has become a formidable promotional machine.

"The focus on book clubs has spurred the evolution of a new breed: the author-hustler, the writer who succeeds in large part because of door-to-door salesmanship," says Mickey Pearlman, a "professional book club facilitator" as Francesca Mari, blogging in The Daily Beast, describes him. In The Book-Club Hustlers Mari details Pearlman's very professional approach to what most of us think of as an informal and loosely organized activity.

Pearlman offers four-hour book-marketing seminars (for $500), focusing on "how to creatively market your book on the Web and in other outlets"—one of those outlets being, of course, book groups. "You’re building an interest in you," Pearlman says, “so they’ll be very likely to buy your next book."

Mari cites the activity of a typical self-promoter, Joshua Henkin, who has made the rounds of more than 175 groups. “With 10 people in each group, that’s 1,750 books sold right there.” Another, Adriana Trigiani, works the clubs by phone, as does Chris Bohjalian. Laura Dave even does hers via Skype.

You can't fault authors for wanting to hustle their goods. But you might get a little squeamish to think that authors and publishers may deliberately be shaping books to appeal to book clubs. Mari reports how one author, Robert Alexander, hired an editor after his novel had been turned down fifteen times.

She told him to shoot for a book-club 'gem', to cut the manuscript from 460 pages to 250 and hone in on the historical fiction. Alexander did and got three offers in eight days. His Viking and Penguin contracts, he says, even state that his books should be around 250 pages. The Kitchen Boy is now in its 22nd printing, and was optioned to be made into a movie by Glen Williamson, the man behind American Beauty and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

We referred to book club members as "amateurs" - by which we mean, literally, those who love books more as a pastime than a profession. But in fact clubs have evolved far beyond the cliché of schoolmarmish intellectuals reading Proust over tea sandwiches. Chelsea J. Carter blogging on PaperBackSwap.com says, "Around the country, book clubs also have become networking tools for young professionals." There is even an instructional book for clubbers: The Book Club Companion: A Comprehensive Guide to the Reading Group Experience by Diana Loevy.

Richard Curtis

Reading Fine Print: What Are The Terms For The Books You Buy?

This week, thanks to the retraction of 1984 from Kindle customers and the uproar/apology that ensued, there are a lot of people raising the flag of consumer rights for ebooks. It seems the corporate expectations for control are revealing themselves to be out-of-step with the popular expectations of ownership. But maybe we get the service we deserve. How complicit are we in enabling the controls that irk us?

When we quoted Peter Brown, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, who said "The real issue here is Amazon's use of DRM and proprietary software. They have unacceptable power over users," we knew that he had touched on a sensitive nerve.

A discussion on the popular site Reddit.com today is a lightning rod for similar sentiment of consumer entitlement: "It's simple: I want the media I buy to play on all the devices I own. I want the devices I own to play all the media I can buy. If your business intentionally makes device-specific media or media-specific devices I want you to fail."

But I'm afraid I disagree with Peter Brown and his perspective of the broader implications. And while the Reddit discussion is engrossing, there's not much being said about one little word.

Liability.

When Peter Brown says Amazon has "unacceptable power," the truth is that we grant companies this power when customers accept the opaque and deliberately over-protective terms of use that we all too often gloss over to get to the good stuff as quickly as possible.

How many Kindle owners have read the terms that state:

Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

Changes to Service. Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right.

Termination. Your rights under this Agreement will automatically terminate without notice from Amazon if you fail to comply with any term of this Agreement. In case of such termination, you must cease all use of the Software and Amazon may immediately revoke your access to the Service or to Digital Content without notice to you and without refund of any fees. Amazon's failure to insist upon or enforce your strict compliance with this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of any of its rights.

(Complete terms of use found here.)

It may seem Draconian, but essentially Amazon is stating that it has rights, too, to protect itself from companies or individuals using its service. Without those protections, Amazon and other companies would have little incentive to partner-up with new technologies that are ripe with the opportunity to exploit, harm, and cause serious problems without strict legalese behind them.

I think the digital reading experience provided by the Kindle and Amazon cannot be equated with older notions about ownership and traditional physical books. The digital service industry is built around licenses, permissions, and tacit agreements about copyright. What would the Kindle be without its 3G cell phone service (a special license), or the internet cloud functionality of Whispernet, which is a service with terms of use agreements?

When we buy a book in a system comprised of those complex arrangements, what we're really doing is licensing the book for our use so long as those terms are offered. This isn't how we traditionally think about shopping for goods. But in the last 30 years, our society is increasingly becoming familiar with this arrangement, whether it's music or movies or software. It's renting disguised as ownership. We have a hard time acknowledging that this is in fact happening under our noses while we stick to antiquated ideas of entitlement.

It may not seem fair, especially to those who like to reverse engineer and repurpose everything they purchase, but it is a perfectly valid business objective. However, where the business objective comes undone is in enforcement. DRM and unexpected retractions aren't the only enforcement companies use. It can get much more heavy-handed.

As Stephen Fry recently lamented about copyright law, the prosecutions used to criminalize young users are obviously both overzealous and unfair in most cases. A single teenager stealing music doesn't deserve a worse financial penalty than most white-collar criminals with deliberate intent to profit.

The truth is that the intent of most people breaking their terms of use is not to profit, but to enjoy an experience or connection with artists.

But that's not always the case. It may be the most popular reason, but there are always sneaky deviations. And so enters the legalese of terms of use, which try to foreshadow any and all possible infringements and damages. By inducing you to quickly accept their terms, they try to stave off worse case scenarios that could bankrupt a company with litigation. And there's the rub: we want the toys and media these companies develop but we must risk that accepting their terms might not be in our best interests. Every time we agree to unread terms of use (and we do, don't we?), we may be complicit in feeding that beast that can bite us. And what about the free media that has no such terms - are we all willing to take a risk that we trust free media to cause us no harm, with no recourse if it does? It's a murky problem in these dark days of DRM.

- Michael Gaudet

William C. Dietz's Words for Hire #3 - Publishers

William C. Dietz is the best-selling author of more than thirty novels, some of which have been reissued by E-Reads. Recently he was invited by the SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) Bulletin to write a bi-monthly column called "Words for Hire," exploring the world of media tie-ins and novelizations. The articles demystify a fascinating genre and we're delighted to reprint them as a regular feature in these pages.
RC
******************************
William C. Dietz introduces his third column:

My last two columns were focused on the ultimate source of most tie-in work: the film, television and gaming industries which typically create and produce the properties that novelizations and tie-ins are based on. Now it’s time to consider the publishers who purchase the rights and produce the actual books.
Continue here.

The Next Goldrush? MultiTouch Screen Apps

The Holy Grail of screen technology is the gesture-activated virtual screen portrayed in Stephen Spielberg's 2002 blockbuster futuristic film Minority Report. Technologists inspired by the brilliant effects have been laboring ever since to interact with screen images, getting them to do what we want them to do by a mere wave of the hand or point of an index finger.

The iPhone's introduction of multitouch was an astounding innovation that brought Spielberg's vision closer to actualization. But the Apple device still requires physical contact with the surface of the device, whereas the next generation of virtual screens will liberate our hands from any contact whatsoever.

Where are we on the continuum between touchscreens and Minority Report's magic one?

Rebounding from an Apple-led consumer flight to handhelds, a number of PC manufacturers are developing applications designed to lure consumers back to their desks and, according to Ashlee Vance of the New York Times (PC Touch Screens Move Ahead), high on the list are touchscreens. For instance, Hewlett-Packard is pushing the TouchSmart, a desktopper with an upright screen on which you can access every function with your stylus or index finger. TouchSmart offers a variety of great applications. Vance points out that "Customers can turn these machines into bespoke kiosks for, say, ordering merchandise at a sporting event or flipping through a menu while waiting at a restaurant." Indeed, touch screens are commonly used for keeping track of tables and food orders at restaurants. They can also be embedded in homes to control lights, music, thermostat, etc., and in he kitchen to follow recipes.

However, after you've worked an iPhone screen with multitouch, one-finger functionality feels pretty limited, and we have to wonder how practical the TouchSmart approach is for business offices. Here's a simple test: next time you're sitting in front of your desktop monitor, try stretching your arm out and poking the screen every time you want to open a file, drag, drop, highlight, cut and paste or perform some other task. Do we really want to reach out to our screen every time we want to move something around or shift to another function? Don't be surprised if your arm grows weary and your back strained. Let's face it: some functions are best left to keyboard commands or mouse navigation. And - sitting at a desk is not necessarily where today's sedentary or peripatetic computer users want to be. If you're thinking about students, so am I. We'll get to them in a moment.

You can google lots of HP promotional videos and demonstrations and decide for yourself.

But soon, even five digits may be passé. Enter advanced multitouch and an Israeli outfit called N-trig. Its advanced PC screen technology called "DuoSense" enables users to use both hands as well as a pen.

N-trig is the only industry provider to offer a combined pen, touch and multi-touch solution, having overcome the technological hurdles of combining the two seamlessly in a single device. DuoSense is an intelligent digitizer, fully compatible with Microsoft natural input standards. N-trig's DuoSense digitizers are are easily integratable, support any type of LCD, keep devices slim, light and bright, can support numerous applications, and can be implemented in a broad range of products ranging from small notebooks to large LCDs.

For a cool demo check out this video of N-trig. By the way, if you're fascinated by the possibilities and have some clever ideas of your own for Windows 7 apps, N-Trig offers a $900 touchscreen kit that software developers that can use to develop their own.

Note that N-trig's demonstration is being performed on a tablet computer, as well as on a convertible laptop/slate. Why tablets? Aren't they just a niche? So far, yes. But that's going to change big time. There's a whole population of computer users that is simply not deskbound. It's called students, and, as we have stated in these pages again and again, the only viable computer product for students is the tablet. "Textbooks and other illustrated books simply cannot be crammed into anything smaller than a screen close to the size of a laptop," I wrote. "Tablets have all the virtues of laptops PLUS touchscreen functionality. For students, reading books on an e-reading device is highly desirable but not as imperative as the ability to handwrite notes on their device's screen."

Students will certainly give N-trig's DuoSense two thumbs up, plus the other eight digits as well. "Such touch software can handle lots of fingers hitting a screen at once rather than just relying on one or two digits, as most of today’s touch screens do," writes Vance.

In anticipation of a major push into the tablet market, Microsoft is reported to have invested $24 million in N-trig, and the forthcoming Windows 7 (look for it in 2010) "supports gestures such as pinching and fingertip scrolling,"reports Wired. "Other Windows programs, such as Paint, will also include new brushes designed for multi-touch and features such as panning across a page in Internet Explorer." But the outer limits of known touchscreen tech is Microsoft Surface's Cynergy Labs, and it's likely that Surface will dominate the field until 3D replaces it. Check out these dumfounding videos.

Microsoft's Surface is probably the direction consumers will go over the next few years, but shimmering on the distant horizon is a means of projecting action onto a screen without any contact whatever. We caught a glimpse of this with the wearable "Sixth Sense" device demonstrated at a recent TED (Technology Entertainment Design) conference. But for a mind-bending look at the state of the art of virtual, check out Project Natal by Microsoft designed for XBox 360. Stephen Spielberg, eat your heart out.

Richard Curtis

This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times. Every blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers. Without them our free society would not only be impoverished but imperiled. We must strive to find a way to rescue the industry, even if it means nothing more than buying a paper on the street. Support your local newspaper.

A Tale of Two Balls

There was a moment of ribald hilarity at the first government-sponsored e-book conference in 1998, where the e-book industry was officially launched in an atmosphere of evangelical fervor. As one of the few attendees from the traditional publishing sector, I was surrounded by a crowd of techies, engineers, entrepreneurial pioneers, geeks and dreamers who had toiled in the rocky e-book vineyard for years and were at last about to witness the realization of their vision. After a number of presentations had been given, a professorial gentleman took the podium and began a power point presentation. On the auditorium screen was a picture of what looked like tiny white balls.

The presenter explained that we were looking at something he called E Ink. Suspended in a liquid were millions of microcapsules containing particles that were dark on one side and light on the other, and each side had oppositely charged particles. By applying an electronic field, the white surface became black. And by sending a computer message instructing the suspension to turn the white microcapsules into black ones shaped like a "W", the screen would show the letter W. Or by sending a message instructing the suspension to turn the white microcapsules into black ones shaped like War and Peace, the screen would show a book-length screen containing Tolstoy's epic.

He touched a key on his keyboard advancing to the next slide. Voila!

"See? Your white balls just turned black," the gentleman explained. He did not crack a smile.

An undercurrent of titters swept the audience as he droned on humorlessly about your white balls turning black and your black balls turning white. Aside from the inadvertent pun, the concept struck me as preposterous. I turned to a colleague and said, "That dog won't hunt!"

Last month the E Ink Corporation was bought by a Taiwanese company for $215 million.

My notes on that 1998 conference are lost, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the presenter was Joe Jacobson, creator of electronic ink, who was awarded a patent for it in 2000.

He who titters last titters best.

Richard Curtis

William C. Dietz's Words for Hire #2 - Television and Movie Tie-Ins

William C. Dietz is the best-selling author of more than thirty novels, some of which have been reissued by E-Reads. Recently he was invited by the SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) Bulletin to write a bi-monthly column called "Words for Hire," exploring the world of media tie-ins and novelizations. The articles demystify a fascinating genre and we're delighted to reprint them as a regular feature in these pages.
RC
******************************
William C. Dietz introduces his second column:

Traditionally most tie-in novels have been based on movies and television programs. A quick check of the International Association of Media Tie-In Writers (IAMTW) website provides dozens of examples including Maverick, Murder She Wrote, James Bond, Batman, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Trek, STAR WARS, Diagnosis Murder, Highlander and many more. But how do these deals get done? Who initiates them? And how are writers chosen?

In order to answer those questions and more I interviewed two experts and asked them a set of identical questions.

Continue here

Print Books Dead? "Not Even Wounded," Says Lightning President

Here's a trick question. Do you think that books printed on demand are tangible merchandise? That they are no different from traditionally printed books?

It's natural to think they are, but you might find it helpful instead to think of them as a form of digital book even though they are delivered by UPS instead of by your Internet service provider.

Because the trade publishing industry is in the doldrums we tend to think the book printing industry is suffering too. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I've contended again and again, there's nothing wrong with the book business that can't be cured by distributing books a different way. And that's why I believe print on demand is the salvation of the industry.

This is admittedly a pretty extravagant declaration, but it's supported by some statistics reported in an interview, conducted by Liz Thompson for Bookbrunch, with David Taylor, President of Lightning Source Inc., arguably the largest POD press in the world. (As a matter of disclosure, LSI is E-Reads' printer.) Taylor stated that LSI has printed 70 million books in the decade since POD was introduced, and its facilities in Tennessee and Pennsylvania hold about a million digital files. The business has "grown 20% to 30% in the last six months," he said. LSI prints, binds and ships 10,000 copies a day on machines that run around the clock. In Britain, the firm is building a facility the size of an English football pitch.

Just as the current recession has laid bare the weakness of a traditional book distribution model based on the returnability of merchandise - with return rates soaring deep into the double-digits - it has also revealed the strength of an on-demand system with a negligible return rate.

"The recession," Taylor told his interviewer, "is focusing publishers' minds on cash, on the amount of inventory they have sitting in warehouses, on the cost of transporting stock. Most global publishers in the academic and STM [scientific, technical and medical] markets are saying they want to get out of inventory, and some pretty radical discussions are now taking place which will allow publishers to do just that. Believe me, it's an exciting time to be part of the business."

Among the radical solutions to the inventory problem is the creation of digital warehouses. These are in essence a network of servers containing vast archives of POD files linked to Espresso printers, miniaturized machines that can print and bind paperback books in under 10 minutes. Someone called them ATMs for books, but while the logical place for them is bookstores there's no reason why Espressos could not be set up in facilities not necessarily book related (we half-jokingly suggested a bagel shop).

Certainly one place such networks could be set up is Third World countries, says Thompson, "which have none of the infrastructure of western publishing in place (warehouses, distribution companies) and where building it would not, at this point, make much sense."

In short, says Liz Thompson, David Taylor "believes that far from the being dead, 'or even slightly wounded', digital technology is powering a genuine revolution in so-called traditional publishing."

To witness the revolution, watch this video of an Espresso producing a book in front of your eyes. Order your book, buy yourself a cup of (liquid) espresso and by the time you've consumed it, your book will be ready.

Perhaps it will become apparent why, in 2005, Amazon.com acquired a modest little print on demand operation called BookSurge, and why, three years later, Amazon launched an aggressive campaign to promote its POD services to publishers. Though Amazon's is the quintessentially modern book retailing operation in the history of the world, a number of underlying brick and mortar functions - notably, some 12 million square feet of warehouses - compromise its efficiency and profitability. In The Nine Gazillion Pound Gorilla Bares Its Fangs, a blog posted at the time, I wrote:

If Amazon is capable of printing books on demand, they will no longer have to carry any physical books in their warehouses at all! They simply have to load the files of Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Penguin, and every other publisher onto their server and print all of their books - frontlist as well as backlist - on demand. It would not only be a huge savings for Amazon in terms of warehouse space - it would be a huge savings for the publishers, too: they all would eliminate printing, warehouse, and freight costs at a stroke.

That all middlemen are impediments in a digital world is bedrock truth. As stupendous as Amazon is, it is nevertheless a middleman between book publishers and book buyers. The key to disintermediating that function is print on demand. Amazon's 2008 foray in this arena was only the first skirmish. You can expect the company to continue seeking a large share of the POD business currently enjoyed by Lightning Source.

Richard Curtis

Leaver Leaves Frankfurt, And Having Left, Moves On

They say that your name is your destiny. So, if you're going to be named Leaver, you owe it to the gods to leave something, and Marcus Leaver, President of Sterling Publishing, is leaving something: the Frankfurt Book Fair.

Der Frankfurter Buchmesse is the international publishing community's biggest annual trade show and a major station on the industry's Via Voluptuosa. Thus, for a significant publisher to pull out - Sterling is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barnes & Noble - is momentous. "I'm not going to Frankfurt," Leaver declared flatly. He'll send a "very reduced team" - call it a skeleton crew? - to the Octoberfest, but as far as he's concerned, "The trade show is over."

Leaver's ukase, uttered at the recent and appropriately named Making Information Pay conference, heralded a reallocation of the company's capital. As reported by Believers Press and by Jim Milliott of Publishers Weekly, Sterling has "taken about $1 million out of our trade show, exhibition and sales conference budget" and "increased our title-by-title marketing spend 33% in a year."

Sterling wasn't the only publisher to announce withdrawal from trade shows. Dominique Raccah, the innovative CEO of Chicago-based Sourcebooks, announced at the same conference that she was cutting her trade show budget by a quarter of a million dollars, pushing her company in the direction of "a complete xml workflow."

Another precinct heard from was Simon & Schuster. The firm's CEO, Caroline Reidy, discussing S&S's latest earnings performance, stated that "we have definitely looked at our participation in trade shows" and are "cutting back dramatically our booth and participation at Frankfurt." She also hinted that the London Book Fair might be a target of cost-cutting: "participation there is being scrutinized as well," she said.

Another capital-intensive practice on the chopping block for a number of publishers is paper catalogues, and though we're all trying to enter the digital age unflinchingly, the disappearance of catalogues will be more wrenching than many other uprootings. Catalogues have long been the most familiar tool for introducing the bookstore trade to publishers' front- and backlists. They are not merely informational and often beautiful but they are a publisher's face to the world, its very identity. Even the spelling of "catalogue", despite Microsoft spellcheck's insistence on dropping the "ue", bespeaks a stubborn and beloved tradition. Be that as it may, Sterling's Leaver has lost his emotional attachment for paper catalogues, saying " "it just wasn't efficient so we've stopped doing that and it feels good." Like a number of other publishers, notably Hachette, Sterling will ditch paper catalogues for digital ones.

The digital book catalogue is a relatively untested medium and the vote to embrace it is by no means unanimous among trade publishers. A recent initiative on the subject spearheaded by Hachette's David Young was met with many polite nods but few are falling all over themselves to switch out of paper, however costly catalogues may be to produce and mail.

As long as Leaver is leaving things, he's casting an eye on author tours. Virtual tours and "webinars" are now the way to send authors out without having to leave the comforts of home (or spend a lot of money on travel bookings). "We're reaching a large market this way," he said. Raccah echoed his sentiment. "Raccah is also hugely energized by emerging digital landscape," reports Publishers Lunch.

"'In the big picture, we're creating new approaches to content,' she said. They are creating 23 iPhone apps, three of which have already been released and should be in the black before the end of the year. She spoke about 'unbundling our services' and becoming 'custom' everything' noting that 'the customer will tell you how they want to buy something.' She underscored that there is a 'tremendous opportunity for partnerships everywhere--the world just got a whole lot bigger.'"

In the cascading collapse of cherished traditions created by digital disintermediation, tangible goods like books and catalogues aren't the only victims; time and space are being reconfigured as well. For those who have not yet shifted their heads and hearts to the virtual dimension, this is a time of intense discomfort and even fear. The oft-cited analogy to the social disruption caused by the introduction of automobiles to a horse-and-buggy world is apt, but it's no comfort to know that after a painful period of adjustment the world finally got used to it.

Richard Curtis

William C. Dietz's Words for Hire #1 - Game Tie-Ins

William C. Dietz is the best-selling author of more than thirty novels, some of which have been reissued by E-Reads. Recently he was invited by the SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) Bulletin to write a bi-monthly column called "Words for Hire," exploring the world of media tie-ins and novelizations. The articles demystify a fascinating genre and we're delighted to reprint them as a regular feature in these pages.
RC
******************************
William C. Dietz introduces his first column:

Over the course of these columns I plan to drill down on the business end of work-for-hire by examining the way gaming companies view tie-in novels, the way TV/Film companies approach them, and the important role publishers and agents play in the process. That includes why companies commission tie-ins, what they look for in writers, and how the selection process works.

Continue here

Shared Worlds

Some time ago, the Community for Creative Non-Violence, an advocacy group for the homeless, commissioned a Baltimore sculptor, James Earl Reid, to create a sculpture. In due time, his skilled hands produced a piece called Third World America, celebrating the dignity and suffering of homeless people. It was a work that both the advocacy group and the sculptor could be proud of, and they were. But then, as both began making plans to take it on tour, a question arose that nobody had bothered to explore in any depth: Who owns Third World America? The Community for Creative Non-Violence claimed the sculpture was a "work made for hire." Not only had the group hired the sculptor, but had also imparted to him its vision of what the piece should look like, and had even given him much input on details. Be that as it may, claimed Reid, he was the sole creator of the work and he should retain the copyright.

The dispute triggered a legal battle culminating in a Supreme Court decision that has important implications for writers. For, if you substitute "publisher" or "packager" for the group that hired Reid, "writer" for "sculptor," and "book" for "sculpture," you have a perfectly analogous relationship to one quite commonly found on the publishing scene. Under the "work-for-hire" provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, publishers, packagers, magazines, newspapers, and other persons or businesses may copyright in their own names works that they conceive and "farm out" to freelance writers. Like the Committee for Creative Non-Violence, these parties originate the writing projects, furnish writers with detailed specifications, and offer writers abundant editorial guidance. Are they not, then, entitled to claim ownership of copyright to those works? Are they not entitled to exploit those works in whatever way they wish, with no further obligation to the writers?

Click here to continue.

Richard Curtis