When C. Max Magee of The Millions offered me a review copy of The Late American Novel: Writers on the Future of Books, a new book of essays he edited with Jeff Martin, I couldn’t say no. I don’t know why, but I found the range of responses on the future of books astonishing. I somehow expected most writers to be rather gloomy about prospects especially in the arena of e-books. While some don’t like the idea of e-books, none of the authors think the book is dead or even on life support. Some of them imagine a future book that is radically different and are excited about it and their enthusiasm made me pause and think, “huh, now wouldn’t that be interesting?”
Owen King is one of the few who are extremely concerned. In “Not Quite as Dire as Having Your Spine Ripped Out, but…” he worries that storing e-books and music and all sorts of other digital diversions together will end up being too much distraction. While Joshua Gaylord in “Enduring Literature” suggests that the evolution of digital e-book technology rests on the idea that “literature should be easier to experience” and he doesn’t want reading to be easy.
Sonya Chung comes at the subject from an interesting angle in “In the Corporeal Age, We Will Know the Names of Trees.” She suggests that when
we consider the future of books – the creation, distribution, and consumption thereof – we are considering, I think, questions of human behavior in a changing environment. Meaning, all debates about the evolution of books and book cultures are, at heart, debates about human nature. What do we, as readers and writers, need, desire, fear, value; and how will these manifest in our choices and behavior as we accelerate further into the digital age?
While Marco Roth in “The Outskirts of Progress” sees the “crisis of the book” as really being a “crisis of our free will to culture.” He believes that if we commit ourselves to “the culture of thought, inquiry, and rhetorical expression” then books will naturally be part of that.
John Brandon in “The Three-Day Weekend Plan” suggests we are in the Golden Age of the Novella. I wouldn’t have labeled it a Golden Age, but I must say I have noticed there are more novellas around than there used to be. And Amazon has launched Kindle Singles, works that range in length from 15 – 90 pages. These include journalism, essays, memoirs and fiction. So maybe Brandon is on to something.
Victor LaValle makes a good case on how readers need to get over thinking of books as being sacred objects. He says,
let’s be honest . . . most of the books on your bookshelves might be beautifully designed, and not exactly cheap, but they’re no more divine than a toaster. They are mass-produced items, sold in (occasionally) mass quantities.
It isn’t the book itself but the idea of the book that matters. He even floats the idea of readers being able to edit their books, for instance, removing all of Levin’s farming scenes from Anna Karenina (or, I might suggest, all the whale processing chapters from Moby Dick). Would it really hurt the book? Feel free to discuss.
I could go on about all the various essays and ideas, and thoughts. It is a good book providing lots of food for thought. And since the thoughts and ideas are coming from the people who write the books instead of the techno-evangelists, it makes it even more interesting. After all, these authors are writing about their livelihoods, they have a stake in the outcome. That it isn’t all doom and gloom or an unquestioning embrace of all things digital makes for some good reading. I wish more writers would take the time to express their thoughts on the topic. Perhaps there might be a sequel in the future?
This sounds really interesting, although … I’m feeling kind of sick of things changing constantly, and I want to stick my head in the sand and pretend everything will always be the same! So I doubt this is the book for me right now
But when I want to think through the meaning and future of the book, I’m glad this collection will be available.
Ooh, that personal editing idea is incendiary! My ill-considered gut-level response is that I want to struggle through the Levin farming chapters due to an unquestioned belief in authorial integrity, but I think it’s a worthwhile question to raise for sure. I suppose I’m doing a more positive-editing version of this same thing when I mark passages that particularly appeal to me: rather than remove them from the book as a whole, I’m elevating them above the mass.
I’m all about book-as-object coming to be considered less sacred, though. Unless we’re talking about a Gutenberg Bible or some other rare & fascinating manuscript, it’s the text, not the physical book, that deserves my veneration.
Permit me to cite what might be the definitive view of the Future of Reading, which is closely related to The Future of Books:
http://marksinthemargin.blogspot.com/2011/01/future-of-reading.html
The idea of being able to personally edit a book is a bit frightening. I know I would take out all the War passages in War and Peace, but then that would sort of defeat the object, wouldn’t it? And how would I know what to take out if I hadn’t already read it? I can see there ‘s a lot of food for thought here. I hope the book is going to be available in the UK.
Yes, I think I agree with Emily and Annie … while I may find bits of different books to my liking it IS a work of art. I’d rather it stay as it was. I can review it, discuss it, but I don’t really want to change it. Where’s the fun in that?
WG, everyone’s repsonses to the idea of being able to edit a book is really interesting. I wouldn’t necessarily want to edit my books but the idea that I could is intriguing. It makes reading an even more collaborative enterprise and the resulting reader edited book(s) would all be slightly different which gives one all kinds of issues to consider.
Dorothy, I totally understand being tired of change. When things are constantly changing there is no chance to really rest. Just when you get used to something, it changes. Again. It’s ok to stick your head in the sand, just not too deeply or for too long
Emily, incendiary, is that ever a good word! I know what you mean about wanting to respect authorial integrity, but I also think that sometimes there is nothing gained from the struggle through certain scenes and chapters other than being able to say you did it. LaValle hints at being able to edit more deeply than just the Levin farming chapters perhaps to the point of the writing of the text becoming a kind of collaboration. An interesting idea that breaks down the wall between author and reader. And when it comes to book as object being less sacred, it’s the massed produced books the average perons has on her bookshelves, not the the works of art like the Gutenberg Bible, that he talks about.
Richard, ah, yes I remember that definitive post
Annie, it is a bit frightening, isn’t it? But at the same time it is an interesting idea. I think readers “edit” all the time in a way only we call it skimming over the boring bits. I hope the book makes it to the UK too. In spite of the title I don’t think it is a specifically American book.
So interesting and much needed topic to ponder. I’m particularly concerned about books that readers can delete the content, like you said removing certain scenes and chapters. What they have now everywhere, especially in music, are ‘remixes’. Some takes the lyrics but mash into totally different melodies, ‘altered books’ and parodies like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and all sorts of movie adaptations that uses the idea from literary work and take it to totally different time and space. Can or should we strive for ‘authenticity’ anymore? With the welcoming of re-mixes and altered versions, how can copyrights apply? Or, would copyrights even become obsolete one day?
I just tell myself that things are changing whether I like it or not. While I embrace my eReader for travel I much prefer a printed copy of a book for my regular leisure reading. That being said, my 17 year old son much prefers reading on his small iPod touch to reading anything printed. I’ll be very interested to see how this whole eReader, eBook thing sorts itself out over the next 5 years.
Arti, I think the public would love it if copyright disappeared but I doubt that will ever happen. We’ve had some dreadful book mashups of late, haven’t we? But I also think it is something that can be done well too. I’m thinking of David Markson’s Reader’s Block in which he blends in quotes and facts from a huge variety of sources to create a story. But I don’t think LaValle had mashups in mind, I think he just meant editing out scenes and chapters, which is still a radical idea.
Kathleen, the 5 years will definitely be interesting and I don’t think anyone has any idea about what is going to happen but we like to think we do
I’d like to read this one sometime–I like that the essays are by writers. Have to say I don’t like the idea of deleting scenes, though. I suffered through all those boring farming scenes, but it wouldn’t have been Tolstoy had they not been there. It almost feels like taking a knife to a painting–gasp.
I do like the fact that this book contains such varied viewpoints – MUCH more interesting and more likely to be true than the either/or debate on digital and paper. I am horrified at the idea of messing about with the content, though. The whole point of my work as a literary critic was to say to people: for once, your opinion on whether this is good or bad, valuable or not valuable is irrelevant. Put it to one side and just think about what IS. Now think about why it may be the way it is. What is the author trying to say? If we allow readers to follow their own prejudices, they’ll never have their minds expanded or their thoughts challenged. And what would be the point of reading then? Just another way of eating candy.
I have this feeling that books arouse all kinds of ambivalence because, unlike any other form of entertainment, they invite us to be wise. Giving the reader free range to cut out any chunks he/she doesn’t like is tantamount to throwing that invitation away – we have to give the book its authority, or we will learn nothing from it.
Pingback: Sunday Caught My Interest « Reflections from the Hinterland
That sounds really interesting. But I am not so sure about the editing part (where readers can edit out whole sections). I feel the intent of the writer would be lost. Maybe, it would make classics more accessible, but so much could be lost. Suppose I edit out all the socio-religious bits out of Middlemarch, what would I be left with? A very prosaic story. The same goes for Moby Dick too…remove all those whaling scenes, and we essentially have a B-Grade Hollywood movie (think Anaconda, or Jaws 2,3, or 4)
.
Danielle, LOL, if you and other readers suffered through those scenes everyone should
But I don’t quite see you as agreeing with Owen King that reading should be hard either. Maybe there is a happy medium?
Litlove, it is much more interesting than the either/or debate and all the more interesting because the thoughts and ideas are coming from authors instead of people outside the writing of books. I like how the concept of a reader editing a book elicits such horrified repsonses
I think the idea makes us have to consider why we read and what the borader cultural implications are. Your statement that books invite us to be wise is interesting. Didn’t poststructuralism “kill” the author? or at the very least, divest the author of authority? My theory may be muddled and I’m also playing devil’s advocate 
Nishita, but in order to edit out all those things, the reader would have had to read them first in order to know they were there, yes? And I wonder, how different is actually editing a book to the reader skimming or skipping sections? Isn’t the skimming and skipping a kind of editing? I don’t know for sure, these are just questions that come to mind when thinking about it.