Recently there was a article here in LitReader talking about how Stephen King wasn't going to release the eBook (if he decides to release it) at the same day as the release of the paperback of his new book called Joyland. So I wrote an article with my opinion about it and how he is completely wrong and in fact denying access to culture. What's your opinion about it?
He's a douche.
I'm sorry. eBooks are the future, and the future is now.
You can personally dislike eBooks. You can prefer to read them on paper. You can decide to read books that were engraved in stone. Carved in trees. Spray painted on the wall. You can buy your books hardcover, in paperback, secondhand, brand new. You can read them on a computer, on a phone, on a tablet, on your eReader. How you partake in your reading is your choice.
But to tell readers how they should partake in their reading? For what reason? Why would someone deny a chunk of their audience? King insinuates it's because he prefers to read books the old fashion way. Well, excuuuuse me, Princess. You can read your books however you please, but don't ever, EVER deny others the chance to enjoy them how they wish. Steven King isn't making a stand against eBooks -- he's making a stand against change, he's stunting the growth of a new medium.
He's being a big baby.
I've thought long and hard on the eBook versus Dead Tree book debate. I've heard many arguments for and against, and I can see why many authors would prefer the printed medium. But if you have the means to release the book in both, do it! If you want your readers to purchase the hardcover edition, you can't deny them a digital version these days... you need to up the incentive. Why not release the book as a collector's edition? Maybe it comes with the main character's treasured necklace, which wards off evil (in your book.) Maybe offer a gorgeous map of the land. Maybe have a special cover. A bonus chapter. Scratch N Sniff stickers. Something!
Not all authors have this ability, I know. Only the big ones -- big ones like King, can have that sort of pull. But King is the one we're whining about right now, so it applies.
As a consumer of the written word, I have to say I do most of my reading on the Kindle. It's convenient, light, holds all my books, and doesn't aggravate my sensory disorder like handling the cheap paper of most books will. But I buy hardcovers of the books I enjoy, especially special editions or anything of that sort. I don't usually read them, (I'll buy the digital copy for that most of the time) but I collect them for aesthetic reasons. I'll buy hardcovers to have autographed, and hardcovers of novels with artwork. (Like the new Dracula, for example.)
But I'm of the opinion that books ought to be treated like films and video games these days: special editions, preorder incentives, etc. Especially at the rate many hardcover novels are going for these days.
That's just my opinion. I know not many would agree with me. But I can tell you, I prefer buying a hard copy of a video game when I know I'll get some goodies with it, as opposed to the digital copy of said game. And I choose to preorder movies from brick and mortar stores because they sometimes come with extras (a tote bag, or an artbook, etc) instead of from Amazon.com, where I could probably get it $10 cheaper, but with no goodies at all.
I think people are reading way too much into it. Not long ago he released a book that was only available on Kindle. Now he's releasing one that is only in paperback. Big whoop. He's old, rich, and doesn't have to worry about what we think (must be freeing) and so he is doing whatever the hell he wants. More power to him.
He could have just kept the book for himself instead of putting it out there for a bunch of ingrates to gripe about what format it is. It's not like he owes anyone anything. If you care enough about his work, then buy the book. I think people treat entertainment as too disposable these days. Art is not nonexclusive, there aren't many writers that have the chance to express that but yes, sometimes you have to drop the money for a vinyl-only album or actually go to the exhibit to see the paintings. If you can't make the effort, you have to deal with missing out.
I like paperback books. I like my kindle, but I have fond memories of finding a copy of Cujo on my mom's chair, and being astounded. I have all of King's boks in hardback, but the ones I read are all paperback (I've gone through 3 copies of The Tommyknockers, my favorite KIng book).
What about teenagers now who are growing up in a world where paper books are not only not the only option, but not even the best option? King is letting them experience what I experienced--the simple joy of having a nice little paperback to hold under your covers, with your flashlight on, and scare the bejeezus out of yourself.
Let him do what he wants. As long as his stories are in some way accessible who cares.
Print first means people may actually get up, go outside, and go to a god damn bookstore. Anything that gets people into a bookstore I'm behind 100%.
Then again they'll probably order it from Amazon anyway.
So the question is: is Amazon the bookstore? Is it better to have readers browsing physical bookshelves than virtual ones? What's interesting to me is whether or not Amazon can nail down the algorithim--can they get impulse buys by placing cheap books alongside books that people want to buy?
For now, I think they are failing. I just searched Stephen King on amazon. It showed me the books I'd been looking at lately (Donald Maas, Noah Lukemon, et al) or had purchased in the past. This is indicative of the prevailing pyschology that people want what's familiar. My contention is that Amazon's algo could be considerably improved by contextual SERPs--that is, when I search for something, process what I'm searching for, compare it to what other people (regardless of search/purchase history) who searched for this item have searched for and then purchased, and then present me with the most saleable items based on those factors. There are plenty of variables in play: billing address, goodreads API, etc.
I think of Amazon as... well, Amazon. Not a bookstore, just... a place... to buy things. Cheaply.
As far as teenagers and eBooks go, I'm pretty sure teenagers don't like eReaders. I read some article that said they thought eReaders were lame.
I like them. They're convenient. My reading quadrupled when I bought my eReader. But I'm not a very cool person, by teenager standards. And I didn't get an eReader to be cool, anyway... I stopped reading books because they were too cumbersome for my commute, and too irritating to touch. Handling paper makes me go Hulk on everything.
OK--but when you want to 'buy things cheaply'--you think Amazon? No store in existance wouldn't want that byline. Mission accomplished.
If you read an article on the internet, it must be true. I'm pretty sure.
You stopped reading because books are inconvenient? But a $200 tablet that needs a screenguard and holds your login information is convenient?
I would think a Kindle is a lot easier to hold a good amount of books/magazine/comics. But then again if you like encumbering yourself go ahead.
I personally like hard copies better. Digital, while convenient, I'm not as fond of. I like flipping and sniffing book paper.
"He could have just kept the book for himself instead of putting it out there for a bunch of ingrates to gripe about what format it is."
This. People get the idea that they deserve or are owed things from authors, musicians, artists, when in reality, we should be grateful they share with us at all.
King has made his money. Whatever he wants to do is fine. On the other hand, I get sick of people bashing e-readers. Don't get me wrong, I love books. I love the feel of them, the smell of them, even just looking at the covers. I have around 500 paper books. But I also like the fact that I have nearly 300 books on my Kindle. I barely have space in my house for the 500 books I do own, I could never manage another 300. Also, most of my Kindle books are public domain, which meant they were free to me.
I can't possibly believe any article that says teenagers don't like e-readers, because I see them doing stuff on their phones all the time. It doesn't make any logical sense. However, paper books are always going to have at least a partial market. Most people aren't going to give young readers an e-reader, and there are still people without internet, or who could not afford e-readers.
King has earned the right to do whatever he wants, though. People will buy it, either way.
Nah, teenagers like phones. And ipads. And stuff like that.
But eReaders, like the Kindle or the Nook -- those aren't cool, apparently.
I never said BOOKS were inconvenient. I said they were inconvenient for commutes. Try standing on a bus with a book in one hand, the other gripping the handle that hangs next to your head, the other shielding your purse from suspicious persons. What? You don't have three hands? Neither do I.
No, the real reason I had to cut down on my reading is I have trouble handling paper. It's a difficult problem to explain, and doesn't only include an aversion to paper products, but I'll just leave it at that.
Back on the subject of King, the only excuse I'll take on why one won't publish an eBook version of their work is "Artistic Reasons." His sound sentimental, not artistic. I don't hold anything against the guy, as I'm not an avid reader of his work and this doesn't affect me directly; I'm just saying that too many authors these days frown at eBooks, and too many publishers don't know how to handle the eBook market. These are things that make me rant.
That's fine, except you don't know what you're talking about. King was on the vanguard of e-publishing-- so your portrayal of him as as just a sentimental ole softie is just flat-out incorrect. He published 'Riding the Bullet' and 'The Plant' as ebooks in 2000--likely a ways before many of the people here were even on the internet.
And, despite the edit of your post, you did originally say you stopped reading because it was inconvenient. So if you flubbed a line, own it.
And don't call Stephen King a douche--not because it's silly, but because it just isn't true. Truth is the writer's job--always the truth.
@Jeff I stand corrected. I didn't know he was pushing for ebooks. I'll give credit where it is due. But I still think he shouldn't hold back on publishing a book digitally, not without good reason. Like I said before, I don't know much about his work, and my original post is mostly made up of frustrations over authors and publishing houses in general who refuse to embrace eBooks as a new way to share work.
I do apologize for calling King a douche, though. That was uncalled for. It was rage built up from countless eBook arguments elsewhere, directed at the wrong fellow. Another article I read, away from Litreactor, painted his current choice as an 'end all' sort of thing -- where he was decidedly against ebooks and making a stand by publishing his newest work in good ol' paper format. I should have checked my sources.
However, I don't think it's a good idea to deny eBook readers just because. I'm sure King has his reasons, but the reasons I've seen shared so far have been sentimental. And that's why I used that word, because that is the best way I can describe it.
For the record, I don't think the man's a big old softy. he writes horror. Horror that I may not have read much of, but the films based on his work have scared the piss out of me time and time again. So, again, apologies if it seemed I was insinuating such.
I only edit my posts if they contain embarrassing typos, double words, or poorly constructed sentences. I don't edit out or add to already existing sentences to change their meanings. So I don't know what post you are referring to where I called books inconvenient, at least without the reasons I've shared with everyone: commutes and handling of pages. So, no... I haven't edited any flubbed sentences. Perhaps you can send me a private message detailing exactly what you believe has been changed? I don't want to continue the argument over my choice of words and flubbery of sentences here in this thread. If you're right, I'll be sure to admit such here.
Hrm. Maybe I was wrong (though I doubt it, I've only been wrong once: a lovely spring day in 1987, and it shan't ever happen again), as I was pretty deep in my cups at the time. Apologies to you... this time.
I'm pretty sure I read that he was realeasing his new book in paper format because he grew up reading those pulpy paperback novels and wanted to reader to have the same kind of experience. I understand where he's coming from. It doesn't matter though. Whatever he wants to do, he'll do it. I just hope it's a good book. Last good one I read by him was Cell. Totally dug that book.
I hated Cell--I've found his recent books fairly humorless compared to the coke and booze years of the 80's (The Tommyknockers, my personal favorite, is downright hilarious in places. Love that book.).
Avery and Renfield were more straightforward than I was...so instead of reiterating my points, I'll just direct you to their posts.
@Jeff I stand corrected. I didn't know he was pushing for ebooks. I'll give credit where it is due. But I still think he shouldn't hold back on publishing a book digitally, not without good reason
What is "a good reason"? I think "I've made it far enough and have enough cash not to worry about book sales, and I want to publish this book in this particular way, because it speaks to me." Is a damn good reason, in my opinion. So we are trending toward ebooks. Look, we're trending toward a lot of thing in the publishing and reading world, should authors write to those trends, too? I say no, not unless it speaks to them. This isn't as though he has declared a war on the electronic format (just the opposite, really) and it isn't as though he has decided to make all of his books unavailable for ereaders. He's doing this one project this way, because he thinks it is a cool idea.
Fuck it. I wish I had the clout to be that possesive of my work, and try to make something more than a story out of my writing.
I sent King an email to complain about this new ebook bullshit and he replied in a handwritten letter. What a dick!
Fylh made me snort. Then everyone in the room looked at me waiting for me to explain.
You have to admit Fylh that's pretty fucking funny.
Personally I love paperback and used to be on King's side for awhile until one day from running numerous errands that everywhere I went I saw people were reading on their tablets, iPads, Kindles, nooks and other inferior reading devices. It hit me like a steel toe to the scrotum and I sat home thinking about this digital trend and how much its embedded in society these days.
My sister has a kindle fire that she rarely uses and sometimes I'll read a couple samples from there, I loathe samples, and actually found it convienient that I can take this thing everywhere. I used to have killer migrains from reading on paper during car rides but with that white screen and crisp black text it hurts to say I loved it during those rides.
I still frown upon eBooks
but hey its change.
So I'm supposed to be doing other things here at work, but instead I'm here. And Fylh almost got me fired because the people at my work all know that working does not make people laugh.
I hate you, Fylh.
Prepare yourself for an onslaught of insulting private messages that I will later deny.
Too soon?
Haha. The perils of humor in a humorless workplace.
My workplace is full of humor, but mostly it is the stressed laugh of people who can't believe how ridiculous this place can be at times. It's the sort of laugh that says, "You know what? I give up." It's a slightly maniacal chuckle. Stephen King would like it.
I laugh like that all the time. The best laughs are the ones that scare you because you aren't sure where they came from, because surely that sound couldn't have come from you.
The laughter that comes right before confused and hopeless tears is the best.
@Jack Yep, I know that feeling especially when you're crunching numbers for four hours only to realize at the end you missed something...twice.
I just think it is funny that if this were a new author, we'd be talking about how it is going to hurt that author's exposure and profit, but since it is Stephen King, we are arguing over whether he owes it to his readers to make this one, single book available in all formats. It's silly. It's Stephen King's name on the cover, not mine. IDGAF what he does with it.
I agree with everyone posting about how it's ridiculous that this is even seen as an issue in the first place.
When did the idea of carrying around a paperback novel become so cumbersome to so many people? Just because King's next book is only going to be out in print for a while (he never said it would never come out in eBook format, it just won't be available on the initial release date) doesn't suddenly make all our Kindles and other eReaders obsolete.
And for the record, and I'm only twenty years old, a lot of people enjoy the physical aspects of owning and reading a paperback or hardcover. The feel of the book in your hands, the feel of progress as you gradually work your way from one side of the book to the other, the satisfaction in having a real, tangible book collection. Real, hard copies of books will not and should not ever go away. If you actually believe that one day paperbacks will be "obsolete", then you might as well take your place with everyone who thought that we would never see another record player again when they started selling tapes and CDs.
Casette players are making a comeback.
You'll see.
I hope so, because I have so many mix tapes!
LOL mix tapes. Yes...
I feel threatened by your picture.
I should have labeled all those tapes.
Are you a replicant? Nexus 6?
I just...feel that way when guns are pointed at me.
So you don't need to be retired? No worries then. Relax.
Wait a minute. Are we role playing? Is that what this is?
LOL, okay, you can be Rachel. I won't retire you. You're memories aren't yours, now say "Kiss me."
Kiss me.
That was fun.
