erin!balser

I got an iPhone today. My luck in waiting only 10 minutes to get a phone is completely due to suckers like Matt who waited all day yesterday with a broken service system to get theirs, taking hours and hours to activate a single phone, leaving the Fido flagship no choice but to close yesterday with about a dozen phones left over.

The guilt eats at me.

It really does.

I went back and forth on getting this phone for a long time. What finally broke it for me was that I was truly disappointed that I didn’t have any way to Twitter throughout BookExpo while running around like a maniac. So this is my plan with my little phone. To Twitter and liveblog all the book events I attend, and maybe someday, to move this twittering from my personal account to the account of whichever publisher I’m working for at the time.

Also, unbeknownst to me, the iPhone has an amazing eReader application and public domain books are only 0.99. My dream of reading books from this phone is so much closer than I ever knew! Hopefully publishers will get on board with this format and make their books available to iPhone and iPod Touch users.

Any suggestions for making this machine as publishing-friendly as possible?!

The Boston Globe published a piece today that questions that validity of the non-fiction book Bringing Down the House, which inspired the recent hit film 21, starring Kevin Spacey. (I actually just read the book this weekend, and saw the film the weekend before that, but that proves no point other than I have no real social life.)

Both the author, Ben Mezrich, and his editor stand behind his book. However, as with A Million Little Pieces and Love and Consequences before, such a claim has spurred controversy and many readers are feeling betrayed.

While Sebastian Junger claims doing so is “lying,” on Papercuts. His argument is that “nonfiction is reporting the world as it is, and when you combine characters and change chronology, that’s not the world as it is; that’s something else.”

Mezrich ever intended for his book to be educational or representational of “the world as it is.” He tells the Globe that he “took literary license to make it readable.”

The Globe writes that such non-fiction trends are

Much like reality television shows, the shift is fed by the sense that what audiences want is reality, but packaged with an excitement and drama that the original facts lack.

And does anyone get truly angry that The Amazing Race, Survivor and the thousands of other shows like them, play with the idea of “reality”? I know it happens, but never with the vigor as it does in the literary world.

Non-fiction books, like reality television, has a spectrum. Television viewers don’t put the Discovery Channel documentaries and MTV reality shows in the same box. Why are non-fiction books treated differently? What literary high ground exists so that movies and television can take extreme creative liberties with “reality” with relatively little controversy and books cannot?

While publishers and authors should never misrepresent their books (and this is totally the case in some books!), readers need to take greater responsibility in recognizing and understanding why they are reading that particular book. Are you reading it to learn something? Or are you reading it for entertainment value?

Such critical thinking could even inspire greater debate around literature, the media and more.

Image by Falcifer. Licensed via Creative Commons.

The other day, HarperCollins US announced a radical shift in their publishing policies when they launch a new imprint soon. The entire Wall Street Journal article is here, if you’d like to read it, but here’s the short version:

• Authors will no longer receive large advances
• Book sellers will no longer be able to return books
• They will no longer engage in co-op programs at book stores

I think, given the radically shifting book market, these are fantastic moves to be making. While they might initially lose authors with this model, it reverses the ridiculous “wait and see” approach of publishing– that is, throwing a bunch of money at a book and wait and see if it does well. It’s a much more efficient business model.

The Wall Street Journal argues that the largest impact on the publishing industry will be the non-returnable aspect of this new approach. I can’t help but wonder what this will do for the creative element of the industry.

According to WSJ, executive Robert S. Miller “thinks he will attract major authors who have a book in the desk drawer that doesn’t fit their image, as well as up-and-coming writers.”

Without books costing publishers so much money up front with expensive advances, they will be able to publish more books. And when you publish more books, the avenue opens for more authors and more voices to enter the publishing industry, and gives consumers more content to choose from.

According to HarperCollins executive Jane Friedman, who spoke to the New York Times,

At this moment of real volatility in the book business, when we are all recognizing things that are difficult to contend with, like growing advances and returns and that people are reading more online, we want to give them information in any format that they want (my emphasis).

I wonder how such a model would work for the Canadian publishing industry. Yes, the Canadian publishing industry isn’t nearly as competitive as the American one, but I believe such an approach would further solidify the mandate of furthering Canadian cultural production as well as streamlining the business side of publishing, as well as empowering book stores and consumers to select titles that are right for them.

The other day I received an email from a small American book publisher wondering if I would like a review copy of their latest book so that I could review it on my blog.

I write a whole bunch of other blogs and this particular one is Chic By Nature, a blog about environmentally friendly fashion and designers. The book in question is a book about becoming a more environmentally conscious consumer of fashion.

I jumped at the chance. Not only to receive a copy of a book I’d probably buy anyway, but also to participate in a more streamlined and niche oriented book marketing tactic. A review on a niche blog like mine would ensure the readers reading the review are more interested in the subject matter, and thus, be more likely to purchase the book.

However, there are several, justifiable questions a publisher needs to ask. Is the blog reputable? Is the author trust-worthy? How do they not know I’ll take my free book and run away into the blogosphere?

Here are a list of questions any pblisher should ask before sending a review book to a blogger:

• Is the content original and engaging? (Does the author have a brain?)
• Is there a community built around this blog? (Does the blog have readers?)
• Will the community engage critically with the review and the book? (Will they care about my book?)
• Do the readers of this blog match my target audience? (Will they buy my book?)

Considering the deceasing traditional media space being dedicated to books, the numerous micro-niche blogs out there, and the relatively low risk it costs publishers to ship a book to a blogger, to me, this needs to be a method publishers should consider to get their titles out there. Sure, my review might only translate into 3-4 sales and will never gain the renown of the New York Times, but those sales should re-coup the costs it took to send me the book and will probably result in exposure elsewhere on the net.

The only downside for publishers will be finding the resources to seek out the blogs and other smaller, non-traditional media that will match title for title with their lists. But as publishers become more web-savvy, this should become less and less of a problem.

So, if any other publishers out there are interested, I also write several celebrity and television fan sites. And I’ll happily review books!

Image by robinhamman. Liscensed via Creative Commons.

Papercut, the fabulous NY Times book blog, came up with the “seven deadly sins” of book reviews today–popular words in books reviews, used to sound “intelligent” and “literary.”

The list includes the gems poignant; compelling; intriguing; eschew; craft (used as a verb); muse (used as a verb); and lyrical.

In the comments section, nuanced, subtle, masterful, magisterial, engaging, and luminous, among others, came up.

Would a review saying something like (stolen from Papercut, because it’s way better than the review I concocted!) “Mario Puzo’s intriguing novel eschews the lyrical as the author instead crafts a poignant tale of family life and muses on the compelling doings of the Mob” entice you to pick up the book and read it? Probably not.

If the above words may never be used in reviewing a Sophie Kinsella novel, why should they be used in a review about the latest Ondjaate novel? Wouldn’t doing so further alienate certain readers? I’d argue that not only is this language unnecessary, it can be inaccessible.

I wonder if we need to review how books are reviewed. Who reads book reviews? And why? And, given the changing media and social spaces today, where are book reviews going? How would such elaborate and flowery language translate on Facebook and other social media sites, where you get a sentence to attract readers to your review? Or, more interestingly, Twitter? How would you write an effective book review in 140 characters?

That being said, when such words are used correctly, they’d make for a powerful and persuasive review. But reviewing literature doesn’t mean trying to write literature. Don’t write like you’re smart, just be smart. Then the review will be fantastic.

And if you’re really smart, you’ll show me how to write a review in 140 characters. Or less.

Image by Zephyrinus. Licensed via Creative Commons.

A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about how Borders was going to increase the number of titles they shelve face-out, as to further entice buyers to a wider variety of titles. This article resulted in several very strong letters in protest.

For example, Scott Ehrig-Burgess wrote:

We treat books like books, rather than breakfast cereal, by hiring and retaining great booksellers who take reading seriously and who are passionate about building relationships with our wonderful customers who are great readers themselves. Until Borders realizes that great books begin in the hands of great booksellers and great readers, not in boardrooms and concept stores, we will continue to thrive at the cutting edge of our industry, with this simple, insurmountable, competitive advantage.

Mr. Ehrig-Burges’s letter has lots of valuable things to say that I agree with. I, too, am disdainful of the fact it’s boardrooms and concepts that may drive the sales of certain books titles and not others, and of how certain co-op programs and bookstores favor large publishers and unfairly punishes smaller ones. I value an independent bookstore over a big-box giant and a knowledgeable, helpful bookseller is a priceless commodity.

But when it comes to the average reader, buying an average book, the liklihood they are going to Borders and not that quirky bookshop downtown is pretty high. I doubt the book-buying population that drives the publishing industry are those who consider themselves “great” readers who read “great” books. While I am taking the term “great” in the most pessimistic light possible, there exists an undeniable pretension in some aspects of publishing that can’t be ignored.

Therefore, claiming that the publishing industry is built on “great booksellers” and “great readers” is the same pretentious attitude that scares a lot of people off of reading. Shouldn’t booksellers care more about getting more people to read more books than caring about what attracts people to certain titles?

Putting the issues of corporate culture and the struggling publishing industry aside (and Borders’ own problems!), if a reader buys a book because the cover is pretty, we shouldn’t scorn them for it. We should just be glad that person is reading.

Image by Austin Tolin. Licensed via Creative Commons.

In defense of (or in solidarity with) his Wired editor, Leander Kahney is giving away his two books, Cult of Mac and Cult of iPod for free as downloads.

Bill Pollock of No Starch Press has some interesting things to say about this project here.

“I think there’s something to this and logic tells me that if we increase the visibility of our titles, we’ll sell more books,” Pollock writes.

I can’t help but wonder how much the genre of the books–non-fiction books about technology–will not only affect downloads, but also affect perception of this project and actual book titles. Getting your title out there is always a good thing. But will a book about Apple Inc. by Leander Kahney (who is awesome, by the way) be treated the same way by consumers as, say, the latest literary fiction by Margaret Atwood? I highly doubt it. While technology will play a huge factor in how publishers reach audiences, these avenues will become narrower and more streamlined. A good thing for readers but a more complicated thing for publishers.

You can download the books for yourself here.

A few days ago, Slate posted an interesting article about the history of the phone book. Titled “Why Won’t Phone Books Die?” it chronicled their inception, increasing success and current demise of this information service.

Given the various methods people have to communicate now beyond public land lines–cell phones and email, to name a few–let alone those who have private numbers or no land lines at all, the death of the phone book is a natural thing. Yet, according to Slate, the Yellow Pages Association is refusing to let it die. I know they are worried about their livelihood and their employees, but it’s hard to argue for the preservation of something that is little more than an information service. (Although I did enjoy the historical elements of the Slate article!)

It only makes sense that services that merely provide listings and information move to a digital an more interactive format than an alphabetical index as it’s only search method. Instead of fervently holding on to a dying medium, Yellow Pages should look to the future and capitalize on the technologies people are using to find information. They already have a website I go too far too often for information. Why not grow from there?

This is a tune I sing far too often, but I found this Slate piece really interesting, and it’s well worth a read. Check it out for yourself here.

Image by mdumlao98. Licensed via Creative Commons.

Thanks to Joe Wikert, I came across Podiobooks, a website that offers serialized audiobooks for free.

Users can subscribe to a book or books and download the chapters to listen to as they are released. They let you get your books through iTunes, Juice and Transitor. They currently have over 190 titles and 42,000 users. Pretty crazy stuff.

Joe makes the great suggestion of Podiobooks joining forces with the other publishing platforms. Joe’s a smart guy, you should read his blog.

Check out Podiobooks and let me know what you think!

While I fall somewhere in the middle of the “print is dead” and “print will never die” schools of thought, there is one book medium which completely confuses me and always will–the hardcover book.

Not necessarily the hardcover per se, but the hardcover with dust jackets. They are bulky, difficult to transport, difficult to store, and make for difficult upkeep. I successfully rip all my dust covers within minutes of purchase, then store them somewhere for “safekeeping” while I read the book, only to find it three months later, half-chewed by our resident mouse under the couch.

In today’s mobile, fast-paced, disposable, multi-tasking world, where do hardcovers fit? Reading is happening on subways, on airplanes, in small snippets while doing other things. Gen Y is the generation of multi-tasking and reading is no exception. This is not a bad thing, but books need to evolve with how people are reading them–digital or not.

Hardcovers are bulky and just annoying. I know not every publisher and every book follows the hardcover-paperback-mass market lifeline, but I think it’s a cycle worth reconsidering. How are you going to attract new readers and younger readers, readers who grew up in a culture of disposability, instant gratification and choice when the current buzzed about book is a $40.00 hardcover and they’ll need to wait six to eight months for the paperback version?

Hardcovers. I hate them. Except for a few niches–textbooks, large-print editions, some cook books and some children’s books–I don’t see their point.

I’m sure there a valuable reasons to print in hardcover. The current ones I get at school–”tradition” and “the media”–are whack. Why do publishers let media outlets dictate how and when they’ll publish books? With the rise of new media, media is bigger and more diverse than ever before. You just need some resilience and some creativity.

As for tradition, I’m not saying kill the hardcover completely. I’m just saying that readers deserve choice. Choice in where they read, what they read, how they read, and the format they read it in. Book publishers shouldn’t punish readers for wanting choice.

And I cant think of a single reason we should ever use dust jackets. Ever.

Image by betizuka. Licensed through Creative Commons.