My goodness, I really do not want to give up my tangible books and newspapers. I like being able to physically turn the pages and make notes in my books. The new concept of the definition of a book is disheartening to me. Although I desperately try to keep pace with new technology, I am unable to embrace the kindle. The fondness of tangible reading material is just too precious to me.

I emailed Bob Stein about the post and he noted that his thinking about books had evolved. Here's part of his email:
One important shift in my thinking is that in the "unified field
theory" i said that as the value of content goes to zero, what people
will pay for is community. i've since changed that a bit to suggest
that it would be more helpful to redefine content as including the
conversation that the author's text engenders. in other words, "the
page" is redefined to include the conversation in the margin and when
you buy "a book" you are buying the whole enchilada.

He also noted a clarifying comment he had posted on PW's website. Here's what he said in the comment:
i wasn't arguing for a re-definition of the book; rather i was describing how my own understanding had evolved over the last thirty years. during this transitional period the word "book" contains many different meanings, applicable in different contexts. - i didn't say that the ability to comment on a text renders the hierarchy between authors and readers false. what i did say was that by moving the readers' comments from beneath the author's text (as is the norm online) that suddenly authors and readers were occupying the "same space" and that in turn tended to "make the hierarchies of print flatter" — not make them disappear. - i was sketching trajectories of change but without the sense of "absolutes" that you ascribe. i was suggesting that reading and writing have always been social experiences; writing in the sense that authors read other people's work, refine their ideas as they talk with colleagues and editors. historically though, reifying the contents of a book in the printed object has obscured the social relations that are there. when the process, from writing to reading, goes into a dynamic network the social aspects are revealed more clearly.

I'll be honest, even as a member of the "internet" generation, I really don't want to see books condensed to cell-phones. This may be related to the fact that my eyes aren't the greatest in the world and squinting at a tiny screen doesn't appeal to me, but it seems to me that while Kindles and eReaders are one thing (digitizing books, rewrapping them but keeping them essentially the same [and saving paper]), condensing books and changing the very definition is something else. If anything, create a new category. Call them schmooks for all I care. There should be some sort of distinction.

As for a mass audience giving input on a book while it's in the works, this already exists. Think of websites like FictionPress. The only thing is that the writers aren't ever taken seriously. They're all amateurs and are treated as such. If a bigshot writer wants to constantly rewrite his/her book, fine. I just see a lot of readers getting frustrated with the long editing process. Just some thoughts.

I love the new technology. I read free ebooks (from the Gutenberg Project) on my cell phone, and I've ordered a Kindle2. But, as a writer and a reader, how do I feel about collaborating in the production of a book and/or buying a 'collaborated on' book? Fuhgeddaboutit!

There's a new technology out there called MixedInk that takes a different take on collaborative writing, going for a "what's most popular" approach rather than the "most recent edit" method of wikis. And I think there's a way that collaborative authorship can work in the non-fiction world in a very interesting and effective way.

Look into hyperfiction. There's been some good single-author hyperfiction (Nabokov and R. M. Koster and Jerzy Kosinski all had good runs at it), but in the form of electronic hypertext I haven't seen any, even by single authors, that really passes the test of art. And I'm not sure it ever will. Art depends to a certain extent on the artist conditioning our experience, and hypertext gives up that control. You can get entertainment that way, but not coherent art.

Just my opinion, but I've given it some thought.

As much as I like Wiki, please, book angels I hope not.

The content is what matters. A paperback, an ereader, a laptop, a hardcover are all different ways of looking at content. They all have different advantages and disadvantages. I like the physicality of a book. It is a device that is reliable doesn't need a battery, is portable, and doesn't cause as much eyestrain as a desktop computer. I can understand the use of an electronic device for reading books. I sometimes read books on computers. Remember this always, "It is the content that matters." Repeat this fifty times. Unless you have something worth reading it doesn't matter what device you use. Books are just another device for reading. Before there were books, there were scrolls. We still have scrolls for some things like diplomas.

Wiki lit will only be our future for some things. It does not produce high enough quality content most of the time.

Perhaps over analysis of the written word by computer savy wordsmiths is in all our futures though I doubt it. The relationship between book and reader is as complex as life itself while electricity has its limitations.

Whoo~Hoo, I will repeat like a zoombie, "It is the content that matters." I will now click two books together. lol.
I so want a Kindle 2 , but will always want books surrounding me. I can't imagine walls of Kindles surrounding me : (. Unless it is to honor Rod Sterling. lol.
As for the scrolls, I'd love to read a Mary Higgins Clark novel on a scroll. Thanks for the visual. Love it : ).

i think that reading a book on the internet or the kindle(which has the internet) kind of ruins the experience of picking up a book(as in the paper back or hard back)and curling up on a couch or bed or wherever and taking your time to enjoy what your reading. yeah its useful and it takes a lot less time to just get on the computer but people are rushing life to much they should take time to enjoy paper back or hard back book.

Here we tend to bear the "literary" albatross. Beyond that the realm of "writing" evolved away from traditional forms many decades ago. Even F. Scott Fitzgerald, Aldous Huxley, and the art for the sake of art sorts like James Agee all left the printed form for the Hollywood version way more than a half century ago. Much evolution later, many of us are still banging on the keys as if narrative was divine. Most of us know better of course. It's just what we know how to do.

The more dynamic, interactive models of intersecting literary ambition and audience proactivity do not offer a revised, progressive format for our more traditional literary albatross. The trend seems more divergent. Even divisive.

I don't know. Certainly in the realm of journalism and reporting some major changes are happening right now, with little or no clear vision of where that is headed. One could, of course, see the prospects of a type of reality TV future in the literary venues, and go ooh rah, or ohhh no, ohhh no. If I was younger I'd worry more about which wagon I was hitching my horse to.

I missed this post the first time around...

I just can't get past Mr. Stein's premise that "...as the value of content goes to zero...". I think it's his use of the word "value" instead of "price" that grates. We've certainly been seeing the price of content plummet, primarily on the Internet but certainly also in print (with the notable exception of books). But has the value of information been cheapening correspondingly?

I guess another way to put it is: Who's going to want to hang around talking about things that have no value? What's there to talk about, then?

It sounds like Mr. Stein's future-books would be the equivalent of today's water-cooler conversations about last night's American Idol.

If so, then I'll pass, thanks.