Bring on the eBooks
The Sony Reader was recently released in the UK, and there's consequently been lots of talk about eBooks and eReading, most of it really frustrating. This is because the media insist on building enormous straw men at which to fire grumpy people.
For whatever reason, it's been decided that the appropriate frame for this discussion is 'eBooks vs. Books'. eBooks are the future and will replace Books, you see. Is this a good thing? Do we want this? Why not ask the nearest curmudgeon for their informed opinion. The One Show had some muppet saying how great Books are and how much eBooks pale in comparison, then a little questioning by Adrian Chiles revealed she'd failed to connect the Sony Reader to her computer. This is representative of everything I've seen, and it's all a jangly bag of moof.
Of course Books don't need batteries. Of course the second-hand Book market is important. I'll even acknowledge somewhat bonkers arguments about eBooks lacking 'soul'. But it all misses the point: nobody wants to replace Books with eBooks. That's just silly. I really don't see why people get so hostile - the two can happily live in harmony.
Look, if it's not a totally redundant thing to say: I love Books. And not just for what's in them, I love them as objects too. I'll pay more for nicely printed books: I could wait for the paperback of The Graveyard Book, but I really want the hardcover because it's a quality item. I suspect most people are the same. But I don't feel terribly threatened by eBooks, because I can see exactly how they'd be useful.
For example, there are two books I'd particularly like to get in eBook form. The first is my current read: Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. It's bloody enormous, and just too big to easily carry anywhere. My university bag is packed tight, and while I can generally squeeze in a standard paperback, this one takes up badly-needed space. And if I do squeeze it in, it's still a pain. I always grab a sandwich for the train home, but I can't eat with one hand and hold Cryptonomicon with the other - it's too heavy. Both of these problems would be solved with an eBook version.
The other advantage to a digital version of this particular tome is searchability. Neal Stephenson says something interesting every other sentence, but the chances of finding half-remembered wonderments in Cryptonomicon are pretty small.
Obviously there'd be disadvantages. It's yet another gadget to increase my already-quite-high muggability; it could run out of power; etc.. But none of these are deal-breakers1.
The second book is one I think I've mentioned before. My favourite poet is Byron, and ages ago I threw a 'Complete Works' into a slightly-below-free-delivery-threshold Amazon basket. The poetry is lovely, but the book sucks.
The paper is very low quality, so the letters aren't sharp. This is made worse by the godawful font, and it's printed very small (it's an A5 book, and the picture shows about half the page). They've also - understandably - halved the necessary paper by printing in two columns. So it's just crowded. But the columns are too small for half the lines, so lots are just one word (I'm prepared to be told this is some weird poetry format, but I don't think so), which makes a mess. It's not difficult to read, but it's far from appealing. And I've rarely bothered, to be honest.
All these failures are understandable in a Book. Byron just wrote too damn much. But it's perfect for the eBook format. An eBook doesn't care how much data there is. An eBook can use my choice of font. An eBook can enlarge the text so I don't get eyestrain after ten minutes. An eBook doesn't need to cram as much text as possible into the page, so I can read it in one column, without truncated lines. Byron himself would prefer an eBook version (well, he'd use it as a distraction while he chats up your girlfriend, anyway).
I can think of plenty more uses. I'm not fond of reading large amounts on a computer screen, for example, and I tend to print off long articles. This is pretty wasteful at times, and I'd far rather use an eBook reader. I also have to haul a load of art theory books on the train from uni every week, and I'd prefer shove them onto a usb stick then read them on a Kindle on the sofa. I'd also like an electronic version of the Guardian for the breakfast table, so I can read only the first 6 pages without feeling guilty about the astonishing waste of paper.
Of course I don't want to replace all my books. But I'd like electronic copies of them all, please.
- The other problem with Cryptonomicon is that I started reading it just as uni began and I now have large amounts of dubious art theory to wade through. The Sony Reader can't help with this, sadly. [↩]
BAFAB Week
Just a heads up that Buy A Friend A Book Week started today:
you can't buy your friend a book because it's their birthday or they just graduated or got engaged or had a baby or anything else. You have to give them a book for no good reason. In fact, this present out of the blue from you should shock the pants off of whomever you decide to give it to. And it'll make them happy.
I like.
Neil Gaiman to release a free novel
Neil Gaiman has (somehow) talked his publisher into releasing one of his novels for free, and which is up for public vote. I clicked Neverwhere as I think it's his most accessible and a good introduction to his style, but any of the short story collections - M is For Magic / Smoke & Mirrors / Fragile Things - would be great too. American Gods is currently winning. I still don't know what I think of that book.
Claudia vs. the Queen
While travelling this week I've been reading The Language Instinct and Semiotics: The Basics, the latter being an 'accessible' recommended course text. While they don't focus on exactly the same topics there's plenty of overlap, and it's been like going to a dinner party and being seated between Claudia Winkleman and the Queen.
It's not surprising to be initially attracted by the obvious physical charms of Ms Winkleman, but you quickly discover she's also fast, witty and quirky - a pleasure to spend time with. But you can't ignore the Queen, who is obviously renowned and popular; it's just that once you start chatting you find that she's going batty in her old age. Everything takes ten times more words than necessary, and is endlessly repeated. So occasionally you slip back to the increasingly endearing Claudia for some unpatronising conversation, but after a while feel guilty about leaving the Queen on her own so start engaging her once more.
And the more you chat, the more things start to get a bit weird. You'll be having a reasonable if somewhat circumspect conversation about squirrels in the forest, and she'll all of a sudden tell you about the invisible unicorns that live in the same area. You ask her to repeat, but it still makes no sense. Ah well, this is clearly a hiccup and is forgiveable - the Queen is a complex and interesting person, everyone says so, and it would be unreasonable to let one thing reduce your opinion of her. So after a quick Claudia fix you persevere. And she says this:
Psychoanalytic theory also contributed to the revaluation of the signifier - in Freudian dream theory the sound of the signifier could be regarded as a better guide to its possibly signified than any conventional 'decoding' might have suggested (Freud 1938, 319). For instance, Freud reported that the dream of a young woman engaged to be married featured flowers - including lilies-of-the-valley and violets. Popular symbolism suggested that the lilies were a symbol of chastity and the woman agreed that she associated them with purity. However, Freud was surprised to discover that she associated the word 'violet' phonetically with the English word 'violate', suggesting her fear of the violence of 'defloration' (another word alluding to flowers) (Freud 1938, 382-3). As the psychoanalytic theoriest Jacques Lacan emphasized (originally in 1957), the Freudian concepts of condensation and displacement illustrate the determination of the signified by the signifier in dreams (Lacan 1977, 159ff). In condensation, several thoughts are condensed into one symbol, while in displacement unconscious desire is displaced into an apparently trivial symbol (to avoid dream censorship).
And you're thinking 'I'm not a psychologist and have no expertise, but my bullshit-o-meter just exploded'. Checking that it is 2007, you gaze adoringly into Claudia's eyes for a while and regain some optimism. Lots of people like the Queen. There must be something to her conversation. There must be. And shortly afterwards she says:
Clearly, the extent to which a text may be perceived as real depends in part on the medium employed. Writing, for instance, generally has a lower modality than film and television. However, no rigid ranking of media modalities is possible.
Phew. Doesn't sound too unreasonable. She continues:
John Kennedy showed children a simple line drawing featuring a group of children sitting in a circle with a gap in their midst (Kennedy 1974). He asked them to add to this gap a drawing of their own, and when they concentrated on the central region of the drawing, many of them tried to pick up the pencil which was depicted in the same style in the top right-hand corner of the drawing! Being absorbed in the task led them to accept unconsciously the terms in which reality was constructed within the medium.
You can't take much more, and catch Claudia in the middle of a related topic which seems suggests that the Queen is outdated. A bit of surreptitious mobile googling suggests that Claudia's topics of conversation are widely considered to stand in complete contrast to the Queen's. So you're in a bit of dilemma.
On the one hand you have the ridiculously-attractive-in-every-way Claudia, who seems to make perfect sense, and on the other you have the Queen, who everyone is telling you is very deep and very clever, but just isn't coherent. You want to make sure you're not being won over by Claudia's overall beauty and clarity - and, to be fair, you've been watching her on tv for years and perhaps have a bias for this reason - and perhaps it's just that the Queen is very subtle and clever, just rubbish at explaining herself. But without any kind of expertise, there's no informed way to decide which is the case. But, still, the skeptical brain can't help but lean towards Claudia. We'll see.
Weekend reading
My to-read pile is teetering perilously. It's all because of Neal Stephenson's excellent but enormous Quicksilver, which I'm now into the third month of reading. It's the first in a trilogy of similarly-sized titles, too. I'm going away this afternoon, and taking it, Fragile Things, Scott McCloud's amazing Understanding Comics, and the latest Steampunk magazine. Waiting at home are many books borrowed, stolen and given as birthday presents. It's all good, I just want to read them right now.
This afternoon I'm heading to a dancing weekend in Symonds Yat, and on Saturday we'll pop over to the nearby Hay Festival. I've just discovered that Neil Gaiman is going to be around, so might have to leave a Sandman graphic novel in the car just in case he's signing. Incidentally, I've decided it's stupid to wait until I can afford pristine new copies of the Sandman books - what do I want to do, read the story or look at the shininess on the shelf? - so am bidding for the cheapest, most battered eBay copies, as well as finding out which ones my local library can supply.
Best get packing. The last two dance weekends have seen me running around like a chickenless head after unexpected events ate up my morning, and I'm hoping for this to be slightly more relaxed...I fully expect a computer crisis to develop in the next half hour. We'll see.
Literary guilty pleasures
The Guardian reports on reading habits:
Stephen King has beaten JK Rowling to the title of the UK's favourite literary guilty pleasure. A survey carried out on behalf of the Costa Book Awards 2006 has shown that the thriller writer is the most popular choice among readers looking for an indulgent read, with the adventures of Harry Potter coming a close second.
People are embarrassed to be seen reading Stephen King? How odd. I wonder whether it's because he has a reputation for writing gory horror, when actually he hasn't published anything like that for, what, twenty years? He's certainly one of my favourites - I think his writing style is wonderful, and he's one of few authors to actually get me shaking at dramatic moments. I'm not claiming any affinity with proper writers, but I've read and listened to many interviews in which King's name is mentioned as an inspiration, too. It's a shame if people really do think that about him. Maybe it's the curse of being Popular.
85% of those surveyed admitted to having an author they turn to for sheer gratification, but whom they might not admit to reading in pubic [sic]. Third place in the survey was tied between John Grisham and Dan Brown, while the fourth position was split between Danielle Steel and Catherine Cookson. Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels were placed fifth.
Most of those have a stigma, I guess, but Terry Pratchett? Maybe it's like Harry Potter in that people don't want to be judged for reading "children's books". Can't be bothered with that. I admit I've sometimes considered what people will think of my reading particular authors1, although I try to fight it, but I'm certainly not going to be ashamed of reading something "for children".
I think it's great that people are secretly reading all these supposedly 'shameful' books. Obviously it would be better if we didn't care what other people thought, but that people are reading nevertheless is definitely something to be cheerful about. Far better to take pleasure in what you enjoy than succumb to peer pressure.
The UK also emerges as a nation of book hoarders, with 32% of readers reporting that they regularly buy books which are then put away to be read at a later date. Women are more likely to put books away for a rainy day, with 39% admitting to hoarding, compared to 24% of men.
'Admitting'? What a completely made-up compulsion. It's like saying '45% of the population confess to walking across bridges' - it's what bridges are for, isn't it?
Incidentally, the Costa Book Awards website has downloadable replacement book jackets that say "You can't judge this book by its cover!". Quite nicely designed, too.
- it happens in reverse, too - last autumn I sat in a hotel lobby reading The God Delusion, and found myself half-wondering whether somebody might notice and strike up a conversation. Nobody did. [↩]
Librarything.com
Librarything.com: add your books to an online database. You can see who else is reading the same books, and find out what's similar. You can tag each book, and view everybody's book by tag. Simple, yet brilliant. Also totally sodding addictive. The one problem is that it only just works atm.
For example, you enter books into the database via keywords which are used to search the US Library of Congress, and any of the Amazon flavours. I type the ISBN number and it works most of the time, but I couldn't find Noughts and Crosses by any selection of keywords, and ended up entering it manually. The comma delimited tag handling isn't perfect either - be sure to enter a space after each comma. Entering 'monkeys,camels' will work fine in some areas of the site, but will appear as one single tag in others.
These are minor glitches, though, and I think they'll get sorted quickly. The site's only been up and running for two weeks, and today Lifehacker linked to it, which must have put quite a strain on the server.
I've added a selection of the most easily accessible books from my room - the catalog is here. Note: entering 'read' as a tag is a bad idea, because it makes you realise quite how many books you never went back to...
Update: The Author Cloud page shows the authors in larger text sizes according to popularity, and is fascinating. Look at Douglas Adams and J.K. Rowling!
Literary Willpower
My uncle works in a children's bookshop in London, and has a fantastic flat full of books of all types. He often recommends titles to me, and as he and I have similar tastes I try to read as many as possible. He mentioned The Amulet of Samarkand, by Jonathan Stroud, a few weeks back, and I picked it up from Books Etc. a few days later. It was in the 'young adults' section, an area which seems entirely arbitrary to me - most books could easily be found in the 'adult' section of the shop in terms of their content. Anyway, I thought The Amulet of Samarkand was great. In a world ruled by magicians, a young apprentice summons Bartimaeus, the world's most sarcastic djinni (pronounced genie), and commands him to perform various tasks, more detail of which would spoil the plot. Despite the two main characters not being particularly likable initially, I really enjoyed the story and found the book very difficult to put down. The plot continually turned in unexpected directions, and Bartimaeus' chapters were perpetually smile-inducing due to the presence of 'explanatory' footnotes from the djinni himself. I found the entire book delightful, and agree with my uncle's comment of 'something interesting in every paragraph'.
So. Yes. The Amulet of Samarkand = Recommended by me. It's the first in the Bartimaeus Trilogy, and the sequel, Golem's Eye, is now available in hardback. I couldn't resist the temptation, so headed into Solihull yesterday to pick it up. I eventually found it in the 9-12 section of Waterstones (sorry Tony), but by then it was too late for me. The 3 for 2 table (also known as The Epitome of All Evil) contained the newly-released paperback of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, which I've been wanting for ages, as well as Noughts and Crosses, which Jo recommended a while back. Naturally, Golem's Eye wasn't in the 3 for 2 offer. So, instead of being a good little homeowner and frugally fighting temptation, I found a third novel and bought all four. Sigh. I just can't help myself when it comes to books!
BuddyBuzz
Also on Boing Boing is BuddyBuzz. It's a fascinating experiment to aid in reading on small screen devices. Only one word appears at a time, and they flash by in rapid succession. The software automatically increases the screen time for longer words, and pauses slightly at commas and periods. It's an attempt to get around the problem of reading on small screens, which is rarely a pleasant experience. There's a demo in Mark's writeup here.
I put the software onto my phone, and it really works! I'm amazed. You can control the overall speed of text with the up and down buttons, and after a few seconds to adjust I found it actually quite easy to read. Perhaps it's something to do with just seeing the isolated word, but I found I only needed a fraction of a second for comprehension, and I never became confused in the midst of long sentences. You can skip back to the beginning of a sentence if you do miss something. The only problem is that the screen backlight turns itself off without any user input. This is irritating, and it'd be great if the software could override that somehow. Currently you can only read articles from BuddyBuzz affiliates, but I'd love to see it become a general purpose reader. Plugging an e-book into BuddyBuzz would be very interesting. They claim it's possible to read (and understand) 700 words per minute with a little practice. As it says in the article, that'd get you through the average novel in an hour and a half.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
