ROBUST discussion

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...

I am reading this in my magazine -- here it is online, an analysis of Amazon as a business. I didn't finish the article yet, but I'm already depressed.

Still reading, Matt, but boy, lots to chew on here. This quote seems to sum up any misgivings I might harbor about Amazon:

Serious publishing is in such a dire state that thoughtful people are defecting to Amazon. There’s a line in Robert Stone’s novel “A Flag for Sunrise” about “a mouse so frightened it went to the cat for love.” The cat can inspire inordinate gratitude when it lets the mouse live. “I feel like, I get to do this!” an editor who has joined Amazon said. “I can’t believe it—I’m still standing! I can’t monitor other people’s feelings, but I can’t see what harm I’m doing.”

***

There is a lot to concern us writers and authors, but I think there's a lot to hope for as well if we don't let ourselves despair. You see, I don't think that nerds and geeks will ever be able to drive content via algorithms, despite their arrogance. They can certainly make stocking and delivery more efficient, but if they really want to sell books that people want to read, then ultimately they won't be able to because they're not, well, they aren't individually, personally able to -- they rely on numbers and not intuition and emotion. Packer seems to agree when he writes, "But determining customers’ desires by analyzing surveys and viewing patterns does not describe a path to artistic excellence." I'd add, "Or even just good old-fashioned entertainment."

Let me tell a story to illustrate this.

My husband, who earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon, wrote his dissertation on social and emotional agents (re: "characters"). The goal of the research project he was on back then -- the OZ Project (you can google it) was to develop tools for interactive storytelling in a digital world. These tools wouldn't be automated based on algorithms but would allow a new breed of artist (not a writer or director or actor or animator but some hybrid thereof) to create rich, immersive worlds. His piece was the cog sci/neuroscience/psychology part. The whole team read and studied Disney's "The Art of Life." Needless to say, he's a geek who gets storytelling, and we've had lots of fascinating conversations about what makes good characters as well as plot, structure, etc. He'd be the first to say that humans are still very much necessary to good storytelling and that the AI is nowhere close to replicating let alone replacing them.

At his dissertation defense, a CS faculty member asked my husband why he didn't just attach cameras to people and capture video to make characters more realistic. My husband had to explain, patiently and carefully, the difference between realistic and believable and why the latter was more important in effective storytelling. I think his example of a believable character was Bugs Bunny, who looks and acts nothing like a real rabbit.

The company that the OZ project went on to found didn't survive for a variety of reasons. But no matter what Amazon does, it will be no better, and possibly much worse, than human editors at discerning worthy books to publish.

I've read the whole article and this George Packer, a very smart chap, is only saying what I've said since the start of my indie experiment at Christmas 2010.

The key point Packer makes is that Amazon has already damaged democracy by the manner in which it has devalued books, turned them into widgets, setting 99c worth of badly written pornography at a higher level than $9.99 worth of quality literature.

Packer also identifies the mechanism, in a form comprehensible by New Yorker readers. It is precisely what I've described here on ROBUST several years ago, when I wrote about liberty being indivisible. Here's the mechanism:

Liberty is indivisible. The key element of liberty is freedom of speech. A key element of freedom of speech is the dissemination of new ideas that undermine the accepted norm. Newspapers don't do this; they deal in what has happened already. Books do. Surprisingly, throughout history and into our time, novels are major initiators of such ideas, and spreaders of, for instance, humanism and utopianism. In the past, opinion formers got their ideas from books; one went to a fine university to "read" economics or politics or science or whatever. The novel and non-fiction were in the past regulated by the gatekeepers of publishing, who were in the main educated, liberal people aiming for quality and variety. Now Amazon has turned the novel, and non-fiction too, into a popularity contest to win the gadarene rush to be the lowest common denominator. And Amazon didn't even do this from a great ideological conviction, it did it simply for the mercenary, passing satisfaction of beating out Apple.

LeAnn wrote: "There is a lot to concern us writers and authors, but I think there's a lot to hope for as well if we don't let ourselves despair. You see, I don't think that nerds and geeks will ever be able to drive content via algorithms, despite their arrogance."

Problem is, Amazon has already done serious harm, as I explained above.

In January CoolMain Press, always in the vanguard of enlightened thought, removed all its ebooks from Amazon, with the complete agreement of all CoolMain authors. Sales are down a bit less than half, but they're growing by readers transferring to Apple, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, and Smashwords, and new readers coming on board.

Well, Andre, I posted a link to the article on my Facebook Author page along with the comment: "Fascinating, depressing ... here's a quote that strikes at my heart:

Colin Robinson, a veteran publisher, said, “The real talent, the people who are writers because they happen to be really good at writing—they aren’t going to be able to afford to do it.

This is the response I got from a woman I know (not well):

"Interesting. I will have to read it again when I'm not on my phone. Two thoughts. I became a reader again thanks to Amazon and their affordable books. I am a grazer, read fast and move on. Amazon allows individuals to publish who would never have had a chance with the old system.

Second thought is that life moves forward. I know the term "paradigm shift" has been misused but it is appropriate here. The world is changing faster. Adapt or die."

She told me after reading and reviewing my last novel that she won't pay more than $2 for a Kindle book -- she reads a book or more a day and "can't afford" to spend more, especially when so many are available at that price point. I told her husband later that I can't afford to write them.

Here's her review for that novel (which she paid more than $2 for):

Typically I read easy books purely for entertainment. I have to admit, this book was a challenging read for me. I don't like to read about victimized children and people with sad lives, but it was worth it in so many ways. Everything in the book is richly described. The characters are flawed, but interesting and definitely worth knowing (just like real people). There are many themes and metaphors in the book but they all weave together seamlessly. There are a lot of details but I never felt any of it was clunky or contrived. I read most of the book in one sitting because I needed to know how Weeble turned out.

This is the first book in decades that I finished and then immediately made notes about. I plan to reread it in a few weeks. I think it is a great book for anyone who had a difficult childhood (for any of many reasons). I loved the book and it changed me back into an adult book reader.

I'm just sorry that I didn't turn her into a reader who pays what books are worth.

Super review, that.

Andre Jute wrote: "Super review, that."

Thanks, Andre. I shared it because of the obvious disconnect between the kinds of books she'd probably prefer to read and what she's willing to spend.

****

Andre, I don't doubt that you saw Amazon's pernicious influence a long time ago. And I admire your position regarding Amazon. I'm just not sure I can afford the power of your convictions. I'm already rather obscure as it is.

Reading the New Yorker is an exercise in attrition for masochists: last man standing hurts more!

I decided to check this out at last. I dislike the New Yorker for different reasons. Sometimes, the Liberalism /Progressive / Lefty idealism and their so-called education is too much. Like metal poisoning. Lead poisoning, as an example. It builds up in the blood stream and doesn't go away. After small doses, it eventually reaches a fatal level, and organs start shutting down.

Here is an example. Right there in paragraph one.

"Sam Walton wanted merely to be the world’s biggest retailer."

Um, bullshit. Sam Walton's goals was to put a major supermarket that can order in volume and offer the best prices, in places that didn't have such a retail center, selling mostly American made products, if not all American made products. That was his goal.

Sam Walton died, his kids took over, and the store went foreign market only and dumped their American made products for the bottom line. They opened Wal-Marts in places to kill local mom-and-pop stores with glee, something Sam was highly opposed too.

Right now, Sam Walton is probably spinning in his grave fast enough to generate enough electricity for the entire United States, if we could tap into it.

I'm going back to try again. If another retard comment that has zero truth in the example appears, I'll come back and express my disgust, and sympathies in not being able to finish the damned thing.