Josh Getzler
Around five years ago, I began to attend writers conferences around the country. I went to Indiana and Boston, Oklahoma City, Florida, Chicago, all over Manhattan. And everywhere I went, I would appear on agent panels, or agent-editor panels, or agent-author panels, and hear the same questions:
"E-books are going to kill publishing, right? Amazon is destroying books, right? In a few years, there won't BE books any more, right?"
And every time, I'd look around and see so many aspiring writers nodding, arms folded. And I'd go to the bar at the writers conferences and hear people talk to each other.
"Well of course, I would NEVER buy a Kindle. It's not really reading. I need the heft of the book, the smell of the book, the tactile feel of the book, and you JUST CAN'T get that from the cold, impersonal screen."
Then I'd hear "And my agent/editor/husband tells me I need to tweet. And be on Facebook. Why do I want to do THAT? Why does anybody care what I say? It's all a waste of time. My publisher will promote my book, right? And that's how it will sell. And if they don't, and my book tanks, then it's THEIR fault."
It's now five years later, and the New York Times has ebook best seller lists. Even reluctant authors have websites and twitter accounts and Facebook pages, and generally understand that book marketing has become a partnership of sorts between author and publisher, where the author is typically required to shoulder a far greater percentage of the effort than ever, and is unlikely to succeed without self-promotion (even if he isn't a natural, and wants simply to be a writer).
And look, we're still figuring it out. We're figuring out how to get word out to the most people most effectively and efficiently. We're segmenting the market into thinner and thinner slices in order to manage our time best and allow writers to be, you know, writers. The world of books has changed irrevocably. The horse has left the barn. And you know what? There has yet to be a zombie apocalypse. Writers are still writing books, and readers are still reading. Many are finding it inexpensive and efficient to read electronically--and enjoying it. Writers and readers are finding large and vibrant communities on line, where they discuss their interests with people all over the country and world.
And that's why it was so surprising to read both the Guardian interview with Jonathan Franzen a week or two ago, disdaining authors who tweet (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/13/jonathan-franzen-wrong-modern-world); and the renewed conversation surrounding the validity of the Brave New World of books and the experience of reading, writing, and promoting literature. Why are we talking about this? Why is it even worth spending time bemoaning the digital present? When I read the chatter about Franzen's words, I kind of rolled my eyes and shrugged, vaguely annoyed, sort of the way I do so when people will only permit their kids to watch TV that's (subjectively) "good for them" or only listen to music on old record players without also owning an MP3 player.
I think the reason I get this way (and I DO think it's better for kids to watch Sesame Street than Power Rangers, and Miles Davis on LP is awesome) is because I don't fundamentally believe that technology (or a technology company) is anthropomorphic. Nooks are not Evil. Amazon is not Evil--or Good! There are people who run companies that provide distribution of material. You may or may not like their policies of their philosophies. You may or may not approve of the policies that affect the price or availability of that material. In terms of marketing, there are new platforms that help or hinder a writer (or artist or musician) in getting word out to the public about their art; but again, these are value-indifferent. You can use them well, or you can use them poorly, or you can choose to ignore them (and deal with the consequences of ignoring them)--and that's fine. It's a choice. You can choose only to read hardcovers and that's fine--clearly enough people still do that publishers haven't stopped printing books in great numbers. And I love to feel the heft and the smell of a good book as much as anyone, even as I read a large percentage of my books digitally. But railing against it (or railing in favor of digital exclusivity, either), it seems to me, is ineffectual at best, and often simply curmudgeonly or even pathetic. Why "despair" when you hear about another author "gone to Twitter?" It's simply another way--a new way, yes, but a platform like a radio interview or a newspaper article (and at times more direct and effective) to get word out about a product or a book or a philosophy or a song, And ultimately, what's wrong with that?
We have Kindles and Nooks and iTunes and Bookish and Barnes & Noble (and B&N.com) and hardcovers and trade paperbacks and digital singles. We have great authors, and readers who read them in every which way.
It's all there, and the choice is ours, and indiscriminate and all-encompassing hatred and disdain simply isn't worth the effort.
Love this post, Josh.
And as long as that zombie apocalypse doesn't happen?
I agree with you: Read and let read. Write and let write.
Hatred and disdain—go ahead and take a permanent vacation.
Posted by: Mimi Cross | October 02, 2013 at 08:54 PM