Booking Through Thursday: Electronic vs Paper

This week we were asked to leave comments on the BTT site rather than a simple link to our blog posts. Well, being naturally contrary, I'm opting out of that request. But it's an interesting subject, so I'm having a go anyway. First, we're asked to go read a Time Magazine article on electronic publishing; then, the topic:

Computers and digital media are changing everything we do these days, whether we realize it or not, and that includes our beloved books.

Tell us what you think. Do you have an ebook reader? Do you read ebooks on your computer? Do you hate the very thought? How do you feel about the fact that book publishing is changing and facing much the same existential dilemma as the music industry upon the creation of MP3s?

So Time Magazine is just now getting the word that digital publishing is the big new thing. That's why I don't read Time Magazine anymore. Oops. That was snarky, wasn't it? Sorry.

I guess I'm definitely a paper person – I'd much rather read a "real" book than an e-book. I love books as objects – always have. I like reading them, but I also like the way they feel when I hold them in my hand, and the way they look when they're arranged on my shelves, and even the way the paper and ink smell. As John Updike said, I love "the smell of glue and the shiny look of the jacket and the type."

But times and things change. I can see that digital publishing is obviously the way of the future. I don't have an e-book reader, but I confess to downloading a few texts from the Gutenberg Project to read on my computer. I can understand the attractions of the Kindle and its ilk, and I realize that any fight against them is probably a losing battle. But I doubt that I'll be acquiring one anytime soon.

Now about this whole "self-publishing" concept – well, that's much too involved to get into in a "comment." And I don't know that I really have much of an opinion on it anyway. But I don't really see that going digital is going to make all that much difference – after all, people have been self-publishing for centuries. And sometimes that's a bad thing, but sometimes it's a good thing. Years ago, I used to edit a poetry magazine, and consequently received massive quantities of "self-published" books (what used to be called vanity press books). And most of them, quite frankly, were dreck. But every now and then I'd come across a tiny jewel amidst the sea of unreadable nonsense. And I think the digital self-publishing phenomenon is not too different, really – except, of course, there's no formal editing process to weed out the stinkers!

Oh, and here, as promised, is my gratuitous photo of the day – a portrait of that great self-publisher Thomas Paine, whose birthday is today (born January 29, 1737).
Source: Wikipedia Commons

Teaser Tuesdays: A Little Time Travel

OK, I know it's almost not Tuesday anymore, but I'm just now getting around to this. Teaser Tuesdays is hosted by MizB at Should Be Reading, and the rules are these:

• Grab your current read.
• Let the book fall open to a random page.
• Share with us two (2) “teaser” sentences from that page, somewhere between lines 7 and 12.
• You also need to share the title of the book that you’re getting your “teaser” from … that way people can have some great book recommendations if they like the teaser you’ve given!
• Please avoid spoilers!

This week my two teasers come from The Time Traveler's Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger (p. 109):

I remember her sitting on a bench in Warren Park while my dad pushed me on a swing, and she bobbed close and far, close and far.
One of the best and most painful things about time traveling has been the opportunity to see my mother alive.

The two sentences come at the end of one paragraph and the beginning of another. I've really just started the book so I'm not sure what's going on, but so far it seems like a pretty good read.

Tuesday Thingers: Open Shelves Classification

This week, Wendi of Wendi's Book Corner has these questions for the Tuesday Thingers group:

Prior to today, were you aware of Open Shelves Classification? Have you helped to classify any books yet? Is this something you are interested in? Did you know that if you classify any books, it will also show you who else has classified the book?

Well, I've been aware of OSC for a while now – I've seen the discussion group listed, and now and then there's been something on my LT home page about it. I've never really understood exactly what it is, and have to admit I've never really tried to find out any more about it. Until now, anyway.

I've always been pretty content with the Dewey system, but I suppose that's just because DDC is what I learned back when I was in library school several centuries ago (yes, I'm a library school drop-out, folks). In organizing my library list on LT, I prefer to use my own classification system (or tags). But I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding the DDC and who has the right to use it. So I can see that coming up with another (and hopefully, more rational) system might be a good idea.

And now for something completely different: Happy Birthday to Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka: Lewis Carroll), born this date in 1832. Author of Alice in Wonderland (DDC: 823.8, or 823.8 CAR, or 823.8 CL).

The Sunday Salon: My Weekly Reading

Just a brief post today. I'm anxious to get back to my reading. I've actually got four books going right now, and one of them is a whodunit. And I'm getting close to finding out who done it. Although I think I've already got it figured out (I always think that, but I'm almost always wrong).

The mystery novel is Rita Mae Brown's Rest in Pieces, the second in her Mrs. Murphy series (and that's a very good title for it – dismembered corpses are piling up at an alarming rate). I've read a few other books in the series – but now I'm determined to read the rest in the proper order. Although I don't think that's necessary in order to enjoy the books – I'm just extremely obsessive-compulsive about such things. Actually, you can dive in at any point in the series and still have a great time.

The other books I'm reading right now are Hotel Du Lac by Anita Brookner, Solaris by Stanislaw Lem, and The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. I really started the first two late last year, but didn't get far enough to claim them as "books read in 2008." Time Traveler is a little longer than most of the books I usually choose – at 530+ pages in paperback, it's something of a chunkster (and I'm considering using it for that particular challenge). But I've heard such good things about it, I decided to give it a try and so far I'm enjoying it quite a lot.

This past week, I managed to read one book that I've had on my TBR list for a couple of years now – The Master, by Colm Toibin. Now I need to work on a short review for my blog. I also managed to post a review this week – first one in quite a while (Review: Drawers & Booths, by Ara 13), so I feel like I'm finally getting moving again. One of my private resolutions for the new year was to write reviews of all my un-reviewed books from 2008, and get them posted before the end of January. And that's about half a dozen books, so I really need to get busy this week.

I've also spent a little time today trying to catch up on my blog reading. And there were a lot of really interesting posts this week, especially the one about the ethics of book reviewing, over at Trish's blog (Hey Lady! Whatcha Readin?). If you haven't read it yet, you might want to stop by and see where you stand on the issue. I weighed in with my own thoughts here.

Hmmmm. I said this was going to be brief, didn't I? Well, the best-laid plans of mice and bloggers . . . . Anyway, hope everybody has a great week and gets a lot of reading done! Now back to all those scattered body parts.

Oh, This Blogging – What a Thing It Is!

My apologies to Mr. Shakespeare for that title, but it does seem to fit. Blogging, and especially that aspect of blogging known as "book blogging" gets more and more involved all the time. And I suppose, as book blogs multiply and start to have greater influence in the world of publishing, things will become ever more complicated.

Along those lines, there's been an interesting conversation going on this past week, over at Trish's blog (Hey Lady, Whatcha Readin?), about "The Ethics of Book Reviewing," and whether or not book reviewers should reveal the sources of the books they review; and how that might affect the real or perceived honesty of their reviews. Trish asks:

Is it important to mention where you received a book? Obviously, it *probably* doesn’t matter if you received the book from the library or it was loaned to you from a friend or you bought the book yourself. But what about ARCs/AREs? Or books we might get from Library Thing through the Early Reviewers program? Or Harper Collins? Or books offered directly from authors?

Does WHERE you received the book influence your opinion of a book?

So far, the article has received over fifty comments, with many different opinions and points of view. Seems no two book bloggers agree completely on what the "ethics of book reviewing" really are. But there does seem to be a split between bloggers who see themselves as "reviewers" and those who just read books and blog about them.

Well, I guess I'm pretty firmly in the second group. I think of my blogs primarily as journals – collections of my own thoughts and experiences, literary and otherwise. I'm flattered and happy when I know someone else is reading (and sometimes, I hope, enjoying) what I've written, but I'd probably go on blogging even if there were no "reader" out there besides myself. And I like "book blogging" mainly because it keeps me reading. I do enjoy the contact with other readers (even if it's only "virtual" contact), and the give-and-take of literary debate. But mostly I just want to keep my mind engaged, my imagination working, and my eyes glued to the printed page instead of the TV screen as much as possible.

And, personally, when I write a blog post about a book, I don't really think of it as a "review," although I may call it that in the blogosphere. Privately, I really see these entries more as notes to myself – or little book reports – something I can look at a few years from now, after the books are a fading memory. Just a little jotting to remind me of plot, characters, and what I thought about the book at the time. And also, possibly, where I got the book. This may not be of any interest to anyone else, but sometimes the history of the book and how I came to read it may be of great interest to me.

However, it's not a hard and fast rule – sometimes I may mention where a book came from and sometimes not. So, does not stating that a book was an ARC, or that it was sent to me by the author, mean my review is less than honest? Should this bit of information be included with all reviews, as a form of disclosure? Or is that a form of bragging, and simply more information than most readers want or need?

Well, this is all part of the larger question of how much honesty is enough or too much in book reviews, isn't it? And that seems to be a very sticky problem. I do try to be honest in my reviews, in the main because of what I've said above. My blog is first and foremost my personal record of what I think of something – books, movies, restaurants, doing the laundry, whatever. So I want it to reflect my true feelings. Most of the reviews I post have a positive slant – I don't write many negative reviews, and the simple reason for that is that I don't generally finish reading books I don't like. And since I'm not a professional reviewer, I prefer to read purely for pleasure. These are the main reasons that I've almost completely stopped requesting or accepting advance review copies of books. I don't mind receiving an occasional book from LibraryThing or Shelf Awareness. But if I'm going to accept a book directly from an author, I make very sure that he/she understands in advance that my review will be totally honest. If that's a problem for the author, then I don't accept the book. Once that agreement is made, I feel completely free to say what I think of the book, good or bad.

So, I guess when all is said and done, I'm not too worried about my ethical conduct in my blogging. As in all things, I believe in being as honest as possible, but I don't want to go out of my way to hurt any feelings or stir up bad blood, either. Honesty is a very good policy, but so are tact and courtesy. I really believe if I use that as my guideline, I can write my "reviews" without too many qualms or worries.

I really didn't mean to ramble on this long, and I certainly don't expect that anyone has stuck with me to the end. And I guess all I really wanted to say is that as long as I keep thinking of my blog as a personal record, I'll just keep right on making up my own rules. And that's all I expect from other book bloggers, as well.

(See Trish's article here.)

Review: Drawers & Booths

Written by Ara 13
Published by CovingtonMoore Publishing House, 2007, 215 pages
ISBN 978-0-9798636-0-8

I've always loved books and movies in which the main character turns out not to be the main character at all. Or the main plot falls away halfway through to reveal the real plot you finish up with. You know, sort of like Michelangelo Antonioni's "L'Avventura" – a work that starts out predictable and then turns into something absolutely unexpected. And that's the feeling I got as I was reading Ara 13's wonderfully funny novel, Drawers & Booths.

But that comparison really isn't fair – Drawers & Booths is much more fun than an Antonioni film.

With characters popping in and out of the metafictional woodwork (and those nonexistent drawers and booths and all over the place), and plot twists cropping up on nearly every page, the book has just about everything I look for in a novel – humor, interesting characters, entertaining storylines, some real food for thought, and lots of surprises. In fact, the humor, characters, and storylines are all surprises.

This is one of those books that's very hard to review without giving away too much of the plot (make that plots, plural). A bare bones description runs something like this: The book begins with a Marine Corps corporal (referred to only as "the Corporal") on a special assignment as liaison between the U.S. Army and the island nation of Cortinia. But by page 35, it's obvious something is up. There's a shift of focus and a shadowy figure disrupts the military tale and detours us into a new story, with a hard-boiled detective looking for a possible serial killer. Now don't get too comfortable, because within a few pages, everything shifts again and stories keep piling on top of other stories, doubling back and turning and twisting right up to the final page. Characters become aware of their roles in the narrative, question plot developments, quarrel amongst themselves, and even begin to rebel against the author who eventually makes an appearance in his own book.

Of course, the idea of unruly and unmanageable characters in fiction certainly isn't a new one, and author self-insertion is a device that's been used by writers all the way from Dante Alighieri to Stephen King. And I imagine most young writers have, at one time or another, played with the idea of putting God on trial in one of their stories – although not often so literally or with such hilarious consequences. I notice that I marked "LOL" in the margin of a page in Chapter Ten – because I was actually laughing out loud (it's when God says he's a little teacup – read the book, you'll understand). I love it when that happens!

Drawers & Booths was recognized as an "Outstanding Book of the Year" in the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Awards, and its author (who legally changed his last name from Hirsch to 13 in 1998) received a bronze medal as a "Storyteller of the Year." Well deserved; although, admittedly, the book isn't going to be everybody's cuppa – some of the language, and the discussion about religion will disturb some readers. And the constant shifting back and forth, and shuffling of storylines can be confusing, and even a little annoying at times – I had absolutely fallen in love with The Corporal just before his story reared up, shook itself and turned into something completely different!

I also suspect it's not going to be an easy book to find (the publisher, CovingtonMoore is based in Austin TX). But if you want a good, fast, irreverent, thought-provoking, and just downright funny read – Drawers & Booths is definitely worth tracking down. And Ara 13 is someone to watch. His new novel, Fiction (also released by CovingtonMoore) will be coming out in March. Haven't read that one yet, but after being so pleasantly surprised by D&B, I have high hopes.

Books Into Movies Challenge

Here we go again. Yes, I'm a lunatic, have no restraint, no shame, no concept of reality, yada yada yada. But this one really seems like a piece of cake. Hosted by Kathrin of Cozy Murders.com, the Books Into Movies (or TV) Challenge runs throughout 2009, and asks participants to read two or more books that were made into movies or relate to TV shows (or vice versa). And since I'm already going to be reading a number of film-related books this year, I thought I might as well give myself a little extra motivation by joining up.

For more information about the challenge, or to sign up, please visit the challenge announcement page and leave a comment with a link to your blog post. Then, just start reading and watching movies – how great is that? And now, a list of possible selections:

• Affinity. Sarah Waters
• The Age of Innocence. Edith Wharton
  
• Atonement. Ian McEwan
• Angels and Insects. A.S. Byatt
• Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Philip K. Dick ("Blade Runner")
• Dolores Claiborne. Stephen King
• Hotel Du Lac. Anita Brookner
• The Hours. Michael Cunningham
  
• Northanger Abbey. Jane Austen
• Orlando. Virginia Woolf (this would be a re-read, but I've never seen the film)
  
• Solaris. Stanislaw Lem
• The Wench Is Dead. Colin Dexter
• The Woman In White. Wilkie Collins
• Wonder Boys. Michael Chabon