Long Form and the Tablet

By my count, it has been a bit over a month since posting here at The Dean Files, and it's nice to be back. My hiatus was prompted by Jen and I buying and moving into our first home in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I know Jen will want to tell you all about that, but here's a photo from a couple of weeks ago of our new living room:



On my commute into work today, I was listening to a story about The New Republic on Morning Edition. Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook purchased that nearly century-old magazine, and hopes to use it to re inspire reading long-form writing and journalism. A couple of things piqued my interest that he mentioned. Hughes seems to think that there is a real lack of that kind of reporting out there, and that The New Republic will be one of a few in a vastly under served market. Also, that tablet computers are the best new way to consume long-form writing.

His implication that his newly purchased magazine will fill a void of long-form, insightful writing and journalism just does not hold water. I subscribe to two paragons of this genre - The New Yorker, and The New York Review of Books. It's all I can do to keep up with these two, but I am tempted by the wiles of Mother Jones, The Atlantic, and Harper's about every three months. Those are five magazines that regularly publish long-form works that I can name off the top of my head, and I am sure there are many more out there. I am curious to see how TNR will establish itself in a niche that is already fairly full.

However, what bothered me more than Hughes' assertion that TNR will be the only publication in this niche was his statement that the tablet is uniquely well-suited to reading long-form periodical writing. It makes little difference to me what people choose to read from - a book, a Nook, an iPad, or a Kindle, but making this statement with Hughes' reasoning bothered me. This was his reasoning:

And he sees a growing ability to connect long-form journalism to digital users, thanks to tablets that allow users to "pause, linger, read and process very important ideas."

As someone who has used a tablet to read long-form journalism, I take strong objection to this argument. Indeed, in an article published this week in The New York Times, some cogent and insightful thoughts were shared on just this very topic - reading on a tablet/ereader. To quote from that article:

Can you concentrate on Flaubert when Facebook is only a swipe away, or give your true devotion to Mr. Darcy while Twitter beckons?

People who read e-books on tablets like the iPad are realizing that while a book in print or on a black-and-white Kindle is straightforward and immersive, a tablet offers a menu of distractions that can fragment the reading experience, or stop it in its tracks.

As someone who has used both - I really still prefer the print version of a magazine for long-form journalism and writing. I read the Times on my iPhone in the mornings, but for anything longer than that, I think that the print version just cannot be beat. I think my coworkers ask for my read copies of The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books for that same reason - to read in print that which (for the most part) can be accessed online or in tablet format.

New Yorker iPad App

After months of patiently waiting and hoping... The New Yorker iPad app has finally arrived! It even includes a great intro video:

A Weekend of Reading Contrasts

I am not entirely sure as to whether I shared this or not but this weekend, but I went "Unplugged" again. I didn't really get on the internet at all this weekend, thanks to the kind assistance of Jen. I really enjoyed doing this, and I think it came at a perfect time.

Recently...

It's Friday morning, and Jen just dropped me off from taking our cat, Cosby, to the vet. He's doing fine, he just needed his regular checkup. Dr. Hotchkiss gave him a clean bill of health, but they have to get a sample of his "used water" so Cos is at the vet now. It's odd and quiet without him here - I usually write posts for you all with him in my lap. I miss him, but we will get to see him again at 5. (Although it is nice that he is not attacking the various papers and magazines out on the desk now.) I don't have any single thing on my mind I want to share this morning, so let me do some housekeeping and update you on a few smaller things today.

The New Yorker, August 9, 2010

Articles
Talk of the Town
Comment: Leaks, by Amy Davidson (p. 21)
Dept. of Bivalves: Afloat, by Raffi Khatchadourian (p. 25)

The New Yorker, August 2, 2010

As usual, here is my post about this week's New Yorker. Enjoy!

The New Yorker, July 26, 2010

Apparently, The New Yorker is slow in getting these to me, so much so that I received two issues in the same week. Oh, well. So, following the format I set here, I'll share with you my reading in this issue.

The New Yorker, July 12 & 19, 2010

Well, readers, in an effort to give this blog a broader array of topics, I am debuting a new recurring post series about each issue of The New Yorker. I feel sure by now that you know Jen is kind enough to buy me a gift subscription every year, and so for the majority of the 52 weeks of the year, we receive a fresh issue each week. As an homage to Heather Champ's great blog post about how to read The New Yorker, I want to begin this inaugural post with a small overview of how I read each issue.

New Yorker iPad Article Comments

As I do most every week, I was reading my New Yorker magazine this week. On page 24 of this week’s issue, there is an article titled Publish or Perish by Ken Auletta which was very interesting. Before I get into my comments on this article, though, please allow me to ask this question:

Why aren’t more librarians writing and thinking about the implications of the iPad (and to a lesser degree the Kindle and the Nook) on the primary form of information consumption today: reading?

If you have some clue as to why not a whole lot has been written, let me hear from you in the comments.

Anyhow, back to the article.

The article examines the background of ebook publishing, and why the iPad caused such a stir - not just because of what it represented, but that it presented a real form of competition by the then-dominant Kindle. Though interesting, I am not discussing this part of the article either. What I am discussing, though, is a quote from David Rosenthal, who says that his company (Simon & Schuster) is working on efforts to

... embed audio and video and other value-added features in e-books. It could be an author discussing his book, or a clip from a movie that touches on the book’s topic.

Are these “value-added” features, as Mr. Rosenthal describes them, really going to transform our reading, and represent the next big thing in media consumption?

I say no.

I say no because the adding of a few videos is simply too pedestrian for what we are witnessing now. Readers must be able to interact with their information - be it an e-book, or a website. The iPad provides a medium for some form of interaction beyond pressing the play button on a video. As I referenced in a previous post, the Alice in Wonderland app for the iPad is just a early, but good example of this. If you would like another example, take a look at this example, and keep in mind the implications of this not only for leisure reading, but for education as well:








http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHiEqf5wb3g









So, to be fair, it is not the “real thing,” but I think you would be inclined to agree with me that it is a far sight better than a video of an author discussing his (or her) book. Also, think of the implications for education - not only would the content be more engaging, the updates (that so frequently happen, and cost schools millions) to those texts could be “pushed” out to the devices on which the students view and use their textbooks.

And by no means is the iPad all of a sudden the ultimate expression of the future of reading. What we see in the iPad is one in a very long sequence of steps as makers of technology and publishers experiment to see what this new digital reading world is like, and what we as readers want from this new paradigm. The article hits on one - better prices! Hardcover books new at a traditional bookstore are outrageously expensive, and some better pricing must be developed in order to allow people to purchase the books they want. Digital books are by their very nature cheaper. The article says this:

No matter where consumers buy books, their belief that electronic media should cost less - that something you can’t hold simply isn’t worth as much money - will exert a powerful force.

Exactly. However, in the case of these dynamic books, like Alice or Elements, people are willing (I think) to pay more money. More “bang for your buck,” so to speak.

Thus far as I feel you have noted, intrepid reader, I have been talking about people buying these “books” for their own personal use. What about libraries?

Well, I was reading this post over at the LibraryThing blog and came across Tim Spalding’s thoughts on the in-store reading privileges for Nook owners:

What works for Barnes and Noble could also work for libraries. Indeed, since every Barnes and Noble has suddenly turned into a limitless library, real libraries risk losing a core value to a mere bookstore.

Fortunately, the change to a "Brigadoon Library" would be gentle. Libraries are already accustomed to in-library database access. This would be an extension of an established concept--very helpful in selling new ideas to institutions that are too often hostile to them. And it should be easy to set up--just submit your wifi's IP address to an ereader's website and you're good to go.

Best of all, this is a library solution that makes sense to publishers and could therefore actually happen.(4) Publishers signed on with Barnes and Noble because they calculated that the sales they lost from free reading would be more than offset by the sales they gained from people who bought the book after tiring of the physical limitation--and by the extra word of mouth.(5) With libraries, the publisher incentive is less, but still significant. Readers cannot turn from an ereader to buy a physical copy, as they could at a Barnes and Noble store. But, as at a store, they can buy the ebook. There's no reason publishers wouldn't provide such a service for free, or, more probably, a low cost.(6)

So, Tim Spalding points out that you might set up some similar service in libraries - when you are in the library, you can use the e-books. Of course, we will see some form of better DRM type rules for e-books in libraries, so that one might check them out, but e-books are at such an early stage at this point that there is really no need to make standardizations to the formats and agreements. Yet.

That is why the ALA needs to get involved in e-books in a major way, and right now. Librarians need to start advocating for their libraries (as I have, in my own small way) to ensure that people’s right to the information they seek is not infringed upon.

As always, let me hear your thoughts, etc. in the comments!

Cruel and Unusual

As you may know, Jen and I subscribe to The New Yorker. It’s a great magazine that we both enjoy reading. In last week’s issue, there was an especially thought-provoking article, which I recommend reading before you continue with the post:

Hellhole, by Atul Gawande

According to the 8th amendment to the US Constitution, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Until I read the New Yorker article, I really had not thought of the 8th Amendment outside the context of how the death penalty may be legally administered. This is really the only context in which this amendment was framed in for me, in high school or in college. I had always accepted solitary confinement as a necessary component in the American prison system, and had never really contemplated the consequences for the prisoner. To me, if a prisoner was breaking the rules of the prison, solitary confinement was their punishment. Solitary also improved the safety of the general prison population by removing the violent individual and the rule-breaker.

But, honestly, I should have known better.

In the article, Mr. Gawande points out that though Sen. John McCain underwent some horrific tortures, the worst part of his incarceration in a Vietnamese prison was the solitary confinement. In my mind, this would not be too hard - the painful and humiliating torture would be worse. But I have never been in an environment like that solitary. Gawande also points out several other cases of prisoners held in solitary confinement - they generally were far less mentally and emotionally stable in solitary, and regained their composure when they were released to the general population. Not only did the prisoner’s mental condition deteriorate, their removal had no effect on the violence or safety of the general population. So, what is the real point, and the effect of solitary confinement? Gawande seems to be leading the reader to conclude that it has no place in a humane, civilized society - which the United States is. What, then, should we do?

After reading the stories of the prisoners held in solitary, I was curious to know how Gawande would propose to fix this situation. He proposes following what the British have done - giving the prisoners more control while in prison. Give them opportunities for work, self-improvement, and social improvement. Initially, this seemed ludicrous to me - isn’t the point of prison to be a form punishment for crimes, and to force control on the prisoners? Then, I thought back to my classes in college for my teacher certification. One of the best ways, I was taught, to handle out of control students, was to give them choices. This was originally proposed by Dr. William Glasser, and it’s called Choice Theory. The person can choose their actions, and be fully informed of the consequences of their actions. This gives them some sense of control over a setting (the classroom) in which students lack control, as well as in their own lives. I tried this in my class while teaching, and in general, it worked.

I thought, why wouldn’t it work in a prison? If you give the prisoners the chance to improve themselves in many areas - education, social, work ethic - won’t they come out as better citizens? If not better, they at least would have the skills to improve themselves. Of course, it would still be their choice as to what they do with the skills they learned. I believe it’s our responsibility as a society to improve everyone’s lot in life - even the extremely violent prisoner. And, on a higher lever, isn’t that what we are supposed to do as Christians - love everyone? Even the violent criminal.

Upon further reflection, I have another problem with the idea of solitary. Once again, in my education classes, we were taught about the theories of BF Skinner, and its criticism. If we apply Skinner’s theories of radical behavioralism to an inmate in solitary confinement, the punishment aspect would be the prisoner’s placement in solitary. According to Gawande’s article, this punishment has the opposite effect for many prisoners - more antisocial behavior. If Skinner was right (and I tend to think he is wrong) then solitary confinement would be widely accepted as a helpful and legitimate punishment tool in prisons the world over. However, to quote from the article, “The use of long-term isolation in England is now negligible. In all of England, there are now fewer prisoners in “extreme custody” than there are in the state of Maine.”

I’d like to close by pointing out the conclusion of the article - the conversation with Mark Felton. Even though he was subjected to what amounts to torture, he still wouldn’t wish it on his former, and corrupt, warden. Telling, isn’t it?

Jason Dean

PS - If you’d like more evidence about the negative psychopathological effects of solitary confinement, check out these articles:
Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement, by S. Grassian
Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and "Supermax" Confinement, by Craig Haney
Death Row Syndrome and Demoralization: Psychiatric Means to Social Policy Ends, by Harold Schwartz