Why Is This Hill So Steep?

by Steve Jordan

  All they wanted was to get through the wall, no matter the cost. As Big Pub tried desperately to steer them aside, consumers gleefully avoided their roadblocks and continued at the wall at full speed. There is no way to accurately determine the result of the inevitable collision, other than to say, the results will almost certainly not be pretty.

  11: Luddites and fanatics—What’s wrong with just reading books?

  The e-book concept may have been popular with some people who appreciated consumer electronics, were used to dealing with digital documents, and saw distinct advantages to the new electronic formats. But there were much larger groups of people who opposed e-books in favor of good-old printed books. It seemed there were myriad reasons for them to want things to stay the way they were, and those people wasted no time making their feelings felt.

  ~

  Most vocal of the various groups were the Traditionalists. Traditionalists essentially saw no reason to replace printed books. After all, printed books had been around for centuries, and it was reasoned that anything that had been around for that long couldn’t be bad. They generally spoke of books reverently, romantically, and historically.

  Traditionalists liked to talk about the idealistic ways to enjoy literature, with the implicit suggestion that e-books could not be enjoyed in similar fashions. An iconic scenario that was brought up in defense of the printed book was “reading in the bath”: A relaxing, romantic notion that, in fact, was very rarely enjoyed by the majority of readers. The frequent claim was that any e-book reading device gotten wet or dropped into the water would be ruined (as if a printed book dropped into the water would come out unscathed). It was a purely idealistic argument, but it actually had sway over some people who valued the ideal ways of reading a book… even if they themselves had never or rarely experienced it.

  Other, more common arguments, centered around the physical and tactile differences between printed books and e-books. The most obvious of these was related to the electronic devices used to read the e-books: These varied from computers and laptops, to PDAs, dedicated devices (designed for nothing but reading e-books), netbooks, Blackberries and other electronic devices. These devices all had in common a display screen, and some sort of controls that scrolled the text, or moved from “page” to “page.” They were also made of some metal or plastic casing, of various sizes and weights. Traditionalists compared these artificial cases and control buttons with simple, leather-bound paper volumes, and the fact that the only thing you had to do to read a book was to turn a page. Dedicated devices were considered too complicated compared to the simple interaction of a printed book, all those buttons considered a distraction from the principle act of reading.

  The screens themselves were also a major point of contention. Traditionalists insisted that an electronic display screen was vastly inferior to paper when it came to delivering text to the eye. Many traditionalists often complained about severe eyestrain resulting in reading some display screens. (To be fair, they were not alone: Many e-book enthusiasts similarly complained about eyestrain from reading on LCD display screens, for a time the most common display technology available.) They claimed that no display would be as good as paper for reading.

  Finally, there was the contention that e-books used energy to operate, something a printed book did not need. Traditionalists defended the idea that printed books were more economical because no batteries were needed to use them, and therefore no drained batteries would end up in our landfills.

  In fact, these were not so much condemnations of e-books, but of doing old things in new ways, and were very familiar to computer enthusiasts. Those who resisted modern technology and practices were generally thought of as “Luddites” by the computer-savvy, and looked at as backward, old-fashioned, country bumpkins, “simple folk.” Unfortunately, the computer-savvy had never been good at directly addressing the concerns of Traditionalists; they were much better at denigrating them with words like “Luddite” and dismissing their concerns. Without the evidence of someone attempting to address their positions, and computer fans turning their backs on them, the Traditionalists continued their mantra, and depended on sheer force of numbers to carry its weight. Because they were in fact the significant majority when it came to literature and reading, their opinions did become dominant, and kept many potential customers either hesitant or defiant of e-books.

  ~

  Arguing against the Traditionalist point of view were the Progressives (of which I always counted myself a member). The Progressives were mostly, but not exclusively, among the computer-savvy; many of them simply saw an inherent value in e-books above their traditional counterparts. Many of these values were what drove them to e-books in the first place.

  Unlike Traditionalists’ romantic bent about printed books, Progressives saw a practicality to e-books: To begin with, they felt that literature could be enjoyed in any form; they did not have to be ink printed on paper. For them, the printed volume was only a container… it was the words within that mattered. To that end, they considered e-book reading devices to be perfectly suitable containers for literature. They also discovered that getting used to pressing buttons to advance a page was no more challenging or distracting than flipping a piece of paper over—both practices became rote when totally engrossed in a book.

  And more, the particular strength of e-book reading devices was that they were flexible in ways a printed book could not match: They could alter the display screen in ways that were easier on the eye; they could alter font type, size and color, also making it easier on the eyes; and they could make possible features like highlighting words and looking them up in a built-in dictionary, following links to web-based content, or jumping to footnotes and back again.

  Progressives saw an economy to e-books, since it was considered by almost all e-book consumers that e-books should cost less than printed books. Though obviously all electronic devices cost money, a smart consumer could conceivably fill their reader with hundreds or thousands of books at lesser cost than their printed brethren (even free, in the case of many public domain works), and thereby save money on their book buying.

  There was another economy at work—an ecological one. The recently-escalated concerns about global warming were bringing more people to realizations about how the manufacturing of certain products impacted the ecosystem. Paper production, never of major concern to consumers in the past, became a hot-button issue for many when it was discovered how inherently wasteful and polluting the process was, using copious amounts of fresh water, dozens of toxic and caustic chemicals (which were dumped back into the local water tables after use), and an incredible amount of electricity to generate the paper used in the world’s books and newspapers. Though an electronic device also used toxic chemicals and water in manufacture, a single electronic device could also hold (and therefore remove the need to print) hundreds to thousands of books, revealing an economy of scale that was an undeniable ecological advantage.

  The Progressives trumpeted these e-book advantages with a fanatical devotion and zeal equal to the strength of the Traditionalists’ arguments. They generally dismissed many, though not all, of the arguments of the Traditionalists as hopelessly provincial, while the Traditionalists considered the Progressives to be lacking in their ability to truly appreciate a book. This mutual derision persists, as it does with many old pastimes that have transitioned (or tried to transition) to electronic versions.

  ~

  Interestingly, an argument that might have aided the Progressives’ cause was rarely, if ever, brought up: Historical precedence. The technological age was replete of examples of newer technologies replacing older ones, despite passionate resistance of a significant portion of the population, and what was considered “common sense” at the time.

  A good and fairly recent example, which should be personally familiar to most readers today, would be the typing keyboard: Prior to 1960, the typical keyboard was essentially part of a typewriter, a large, heavy, manually-o
perated machine that many considered state-of-the-art for putting words on paper. When electric typewriters came along in the 1960s, many veteran typists stated plainly and absolutely that people would “never get used to” the sleeker, flatter, solenoid-operated touch-keyboard; that the ergonomics were counter to human fingers; they would never catch on. But catch on they did, to the extent that by the 1970s, no one could imagine (and most could barely remember) using an old manual typewriter.

  When home computers and portable computers came about in the 80s and 90s, keyboards shrank slightly. Typists immediately revolted, claiming the original size of the keyboard was optimized for human hands and the smaller keys would be too small to type on without striking multiple keys, and making more mistakes. But again, users got used to the smaller sizes, and soon, the older “full size” keyboards seemed like dinosaurs to them.

  Then came the PDA, and its small on-screen keyboard, the accessory keyboard (often ¾ or less the size of a computer keyboard) or the transcriber pad (which allowed you to write a letter, and it would be transcribed to a typewritten letter, one at a time). Again, computer users insisted that people would never accept the tiny plug-in or “virtual” keyboards… but those who used the devices daily were soon typing as fast on the tiny devices as they were on the larger computer keyboards.

  And today, devices like the Blackberry and various cellphones have keyboards that are literally only a few square centimeters in size. Even those who have gotten used to the small PDA keyboards often goggle at the sight of a Blackberry user typing with their thumbs at incredibly high speeds—a talented bunch that the Japanese refer to as “Oyayubizoku,” or “Clan of the thumbs.” If you’ve never seen such a thumb-typist in action, you should… it’s worth the price of admission. Go find a teenager, and they’ll be glad to show you.

  The typing keyboard is only one example of the many technological developments or changes that had overcome popular resistance to become the dominant technology used: The train over the stagecoach (“Man cannot survive at speeds faster than thirty miles an hour” was an accepted “fact” before then); the automobile over the horse; the airplane over the train; the gas and electric light over the candle; the fountain pen over the quill; and many others. Clearly, if a person or group decided they wanted to use a device, they could almost always get used to the vagaries of said device to satisfy themselves. The corollary suggested that most of those who insisted that using a device was impossible, had simply decided that they did not want to try to adapt to it.

  After years of witnessing and participating in such evolutionary acceptance of new and different technological developments, I coined the statement: “You get used to what you want to get used to.” Over the years, I have repeatedly seen new technologies that seemed at first almost impossible to adapt to… yet, those who were dedicated to those technologies developed new skills and habits, and in no time, made using it look deceptively easy. I count myself in this number, something I am reminded of every time I start writing novel chapters with a stylus on an on-screen PDA keyboard. And I am still amazed every time I watch a commuter on a moving train thumb-typing at typewriter speeds on a Blackberry! I have used the phrase so much, that I’ve taken to calling it “Jordan’s Theorem.”

  But despite the clear evidence of history, Progressives largely ignored this particular argument, and emphasized the other points of economy and practicality that made up the backbone of their reasoning for e-books.

  ~

  There were a few groups in-between the arguments, who took positions based on what was perceived as most advantageous for them; but as the statement suggests, perception may have had less to do with reality than with desire.

  Authors, for instance, took varying views of e-books dependent on whether they considered them a boon or a threat. A few bestselling authors had tried to sell their books as e-books, only to discover that the majority of customers seemed unwilling to pay their requested price for the e-books. Stephen King famously conducted an experiment with a novel that he released in chapters, asking his customers to pay after downloading each chapter, the idea being that as long as he received a set amount of money for each chapter, he would keep writing. But mediocre reviews of the early work, coupled by the large cumulative amount that would have been required to buy all chapters (the equivalent of a hardback volume’s cost, and an expensive one at that), resulted in less and less of a profit each chapter (even though enough people were still downloading the chapters to potentially earn King enough for him to continue—but fewer and fewer were actually paying for the downloads). The book was halted in mid-run, and to this date has never been completed. King and other authors have little positive to say about e-books, which they see as an easy way for consumers to rip them off, and so favor the Traditionalist views that rely on printed matter (though even King has recently agreed to release his older and out-of-print books in e-book formats).

  Other authors reasoned that e-books, not being “physical products,” were nonetheless suitable as promotional material for the “real” products, printed books. If people wanted free e-books, therefore, they could have them. A few authors swear by the idea that the more people read their books in whatever form, the more printed books they will sell to those people later. Author Cory Doctorow has said, “An author’s greatest threat is obscurity,” and he uses free e-books of his work to spread his name about and encourage sales of his printed books. Doctorow and authors like him are actually standing with feet in both camps, taking advantage of e-books, but with the overriding belief that printed books are still superior products, and the ones that earn them a living.

  And there is a large quotient of authors who do not have a contract with any publisher, and so no printed versions of their works. For these authors, e-books are the only way they can publish and sell their words (vanity presses are an option, but they are hardly economically viable models). They pan the Traditional method, as it is so closely tied to the publishers that shun them, and embrace the Progressive method.

  Editors, by nature, are opportunists… they do their work for others, so they generally go where the money is. Right now, the money for most editors is with the mostly Traditionalist publishers and the writers who have publisher’s contracts. That makes most editors Traditionalists by virtue of circumstance. A few editors have reached out to self-publishing writers, in the hopes of creating a new source of income outside of the traditional routes, but so far, the model of writers hiring their own editors has not largely taken off in the market. Until it does, expect editors to continue to support printed books, the Big Pub machines, and Traditionalist values.

  The computer industry is most interested in the Progressive camp. They are already in the Traditionalist camp, because they provide computer services for publishers (yes, they really do use computers!) and retailers. But promoting the e-book industry would mean a new revenue source, and more money in their pockets. Unfortunately for them, the publishers and authors have turned to them to solve the security-related issues of selling digital files, something the industry is in no position to accomplish in any effective manner at the moment. But that doesn’t stop them from trying, and certainly making money off of R&D into Digital Rights Management systems (which they must know are not at all secure, given the present hardware/software environment). The computer industry is also very aware of the negative popular attitudes to any type of computer-based security systems, and do not want the negative publicity that would result in the improper rolling out of such a system. So they try to keep a low profile, and make sure the public has the understanding that they are only doing what they are told by their vendors to do (popularly known as “the Stormtrooper defense:” We’re only following orders).

  ~

  Big Publishing kept a close eye on the discussions of Traditionalists and Progressives, who were, after all, their customers. However, they were well aware that converting their operations over to e-book production would cost them time, effort and money, non
e of which they wanted to spend. The economies that e-book proponents supported were not economies to them at all; rather, they were losses, smaller expected profits thanks to products of lesser value than printed books, and because of the expected losses through theft that would cost them further income. Plus the cost of rebuilding their infrastructures to accommodate a new business model and product. For Big Pub, there was no logic in investing huge amounts of money to achieve smaller profits.

  Unfortunately for e-books, the Traditionalists happened to outnumber the Progressives by a significant amount, both in terms of sheer numbers, and in the number of books they bought (and the profit brought in by those sales). Given the choice, therefore, of satisfying the much larger Traditionalist audience who favored the status quo of printed books, or supporting the much smaller Progressives and spending the money to build a lower-profit industry, there was little question which choice publishers preferred.

  So Big Pub supported the Traditionalists, knowing that the longer they were happy, the longer they could sell printed books, make their money, and not have to bother about e-books anytime soon. E-book Progressives knew this, and tried to reason with Big Pub, but they could not be swayed: The sales numbers were with the Traditionalists, which the publishers could present to shareholders to justify their avoidance of modernization. E-books were simply not profitable to them, so they continued to create products for the Traditionalists.

  ~

  Along with print publishing, there was a sizable group of industries that likewise depended on the existence of printed books. The paper production industry was mentioned earlier, and at the time e-books were making their presence felt, the paper industry was already reeling from the losses they had suffered at the hands of the declining newspaper and magazine industries. As the Web flourished, people were getting more and more of their news online, and less in print. Many production plants had shut down over the previous decade, including some of the oldest paper-production lines in the industry. Production costs were rising, and the country’s environmental movement meant tougher regulations and more limited foresting stock. The remaining houses that still produced paper for literature knew they could not afford a serious cutback there as well.