e-pubs: The Future is Now

Must be the harvest moon. Drives Cobras and werewolves bonkers.....

CyberCobre said:

How long does it take to grow a big tree? Centuries. Gee, dear. Can we cut that big oak down. I want a tree more over there. And, besides, it's bigger than me and that makes me feel inferior..which is scary. *sarcasm*

Forests are NOT renewable. They will never come back the way they were. Once gone, it is gone forever, forever changed. Because a human wants what? Something to scribble on? Get technology.

Click to expand...

Hi CC,
I'm not trying to argue with you, because I am also an environmentalist, although I think not quite as forecfully so. I live in New Hampshire and have lived most of my life in Vermont. I also worked for many years on a maple tree farm (with a side business in fir trees), so I would say I know as much about trees as probably the next Vermonter. You're right that oak trees take quite awhile to grow, but they aren't used for paper, ever. Their wood is far too valuable for that.

I think to argue that technology far surpasses traditional industry is specious; we have an enormous problem, as you mention, with genetically modified crops infiltrating the food supply. But these genetic alterations are a result of technology. You can't pick and choose what kinds of technology you like and pretend the rest doesn't exist, or the unfortunate and detrimental ramifications of your choice don't affect you. The technology that you say will save the world is also helping to destroy it. Traditional publishing methods result in tree farms, true; but those farms are still keeping open land available and are offering some forms of wildlife habitat. You're right that it's not the same habitat that was originally there, but it is wildlife habitat nonetheless.

In Vermont, anyway, the past 100 years has seen a huge reforestation of the state; sheep farmers had almost completely deforested much of the state in the 1800's. The wildlife that originally lived in Vermont but left due to lack of habitat was replaced by wildlife more suited to open meadows and little tree cover--but was not the native wildlife, by any stretch. That land is changing back to forest and wildlife such as bluebirds are finding less open habitat in which to nest. But the wildlife that was originally in the state is coming back: moose, bear, coyote, etc.

I'm getting far off topic about the merits of epublishing vs codex publishing (thanks, Medievalist!), but I think the picture you're painting is far too black and white.

"I read through a couple of threads here and I see a whole bunch of suggestions for authors to (paraphrased) "go the traditional publishing route."

I find this a reprehensible attitude.

If e-pubbing provided the most bucks for you, the author, you'd be saying the opposite, seek e-pub, not paper pub. So, right now, because e-pub is still battling for market share against the paper lobby, you pursue traditional publishing because of the money potential, never mind the cost to the environment, right? "

Yes, the book is a technology that is highly developed and economical, recyclable and can pass through many hands before it dies of old age.

It is also more profitable to the publisher and the author.

If and when that changes around, I'll seek more e-pubbing.

By the way, I am e-pubbed AND paper-pubbed.

Regards,
Scott

CyberCobre said:

No, but you are in the same neck of the woods. Down under. Taz is part of AU? I would have to look it up. .

Click to expand...

It's over 2000 kilometres away, that's about half the width of the US from coast to coast. And politically on the other side of the planet (right next to the US).

Auckland to Sydney, 2000 kilometres, as I said -- if you need it in miles that is about 1300. Then there is the fact that they have a conservative government and we have a liberal one (in coalition with the green party). New Zealand is not Australia in the same way that America is neither Mexico nor Canada, despite close economic ties and far greater geographical proximity.

CyberCobre said:

I would have to dig through biogems to find the article about the napalming and poisoning, but it is happening.

Click to expand...

Which is really a pity, but has zero-point-nothing to do with publishing.

E-pubblishing has a small but interesting part to play in publishing. If it ever happens that e-publishing starts to be favored by readers, then paper publishing will have a small but interesting part to play in publishing.

Don't imagine for a minute that the paper industry drives publishing. Readers drive publishing. Writers (and publishers) ignore that simple fact to their peril.

It's what they call a "pull" economy. I sure hope they eventually make a good ebook reader but IMHO I've wasted my money on 3 of them so far and it's a ways off.

CyberCobre said:

And wild forests are NOT a cash crop.

Click to expand...

Well, actually they can be. In the Ozarks (where I live) and in other rural regions around the nation, we have sold trees and made money. I am not an advocate of clear cutting or wanton destruction of the woodland but done right, harvesting larger trees is beneficial to the forest. It allows for new growth for one thing. The logger that we used is no amateur - he has had years of training and also gone to Europe for forestry training, to learn how to harvest without destroying the natural forest.

Forests may not be the same type of cash crop as corn or oats or soybeans but they can be a source of income, one that doesn't always harm the land.

Over the last 30 years, I have bought thousands of paper back books. Most of them are still sitting on my selves. Those that I got rid of went to used book stores.

In the last 10 years, I have bought 5 computers. (I'm a computer professional so I HAVE to keep up.) Most of those computers are still sitting in my basement. The options I have for getting rid of them are to try and recycle them (there are a few places that do that, but not many) or dump them in a landfill.

If I were to dump all of my thousands of books in a landfill, the ecological impact would be minimal. In a few years, they would be dirt. If I dumped my computers in a land fill, in a few years (and many, many years after that) they would continue to leech poisons into the environment.

If I recycled my paper books, they would recycle with almost 100% efficiency, that is very little would be left to throw away. Not so with my computers. Bits and pieces can be salvaged, but the majority would have to be thrown in a landfill.

Paper is a renewable resource. Twenty to thirty years after a stand is harvested, the trees are fully replaced. Most of the material in my computers in non-renewable, non-recyclable.

When trees are havested, there IS an environmental impact, but this impact is minimized and in a few years, reversed. When the materials for my computer is mined, the impact to the environment is huge.

The paper-making process is relatively environmental friendly, especially for the kind of paper used in books (glossy paper is another issue). But enviromental laws have cleaned up much of even this. (My town has a paper mill, and I know what it's like. They used to just dump their waste water in the lake. Now they send it to a water treatment FARM where it is used to grow corn.)

The manufacturing process to create my computers produces more waste material than finished goods. Much of that waste material is good for nothing else. What's more, most of the components in my computer are mined and manufactured in foreign countries, many of which don't follow any sort of environmental guidelines.

Over all, print technology is far less hazard to the environment than e-pub technology.

CyberCobre said:

You are at odds with just about every e org's research when it comes to eco-friendly and pulp and e-pub vs trad pub.

Click to expand...

I am? I what way? Frankly you haven't offered anything in the way of proof or argument. You've just made bald assertions and when that didn't work, fell back on hyperbole. To wit:

CyberCobre said:

As to trees as a cash crop, keep on cashing in, human race. Ol' mom earth is going to cash you in and when the lights go out, you can whimper and ain't none gonna hear.

Click to expand...

This means something?

CyberCobre said:

Just use Google. Educate yourself.

http://www.rainforestweb.org/Rainforest_Protection/Wood_Alternatives/Tree-Free_Paper/?state=more

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the internet is a poor place to do research. It is clogged with as much bad information as good information. I suggest you try thinking for yourself.

Sometimes, even amongst the blind, the one-eyed man is not king.

CyberCobre said:

Bye now. I ain't coming back to this thread. It really is like showing a vid to a blind and deaf.

Click to expand...

Darn! I was just getting ready to launch my DOWN WITH E-HUGGERS! movement.

Oh, I missed a good thread.

I can't see any logic to paper publishing anymore. Perhaps for third world countries, at least until they can get an ebook reader into everyone's hands, paper is necessary.

But I've always shuddered at the sheer amount of paper, more specifically, the waste of it, that we use for no good reason.

I think the resistance to electronic formats is more to do with our deep-seated commodity fetishism than with any practical issue. There is nothing practical about paper.

Here's a fun article that explains some of the reasons why paper books suck azz:
http://www.planetebook.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=295

Anyway, besides all that, books don't last very long. And they start to reek after a while. They smell terrible. There's nothing worse than the smell of old books. They smell like puke.

Paper is becoming an elitist cult, I think. In the electronic world, anyone can publish anything. There seems to be this idea among writers (mostly successful ones, of course) and certain writer's "unions" that the common reader cannot possibly decide what he wants to read, and that there must be a complex hierarchy of "filters" in order to protect him from authors who didn't attend this or that workshop, or follow this or that convention. No wonder they're against electronic publishing-- they have a good racket going on. (Oh but it's only a racket to those on the 'outside'!)

Heretical opinions aside, I think that many are underestimating the ebook. The sale of ebooks jumped exponentially in 2004 (I think, give or take a couple years...don't remember). It will only grow as kids get more and more attached to their silly gadgets. Even better would be if the education system abandoned books and instead issued students with one ebook reader to use for their entire education. Could you imagine how much money this would save? The children would then naturally gravitate towards reading ebooks instead of lugging around a bag full of old books that stink and just end up cutting you in the end anyway.

RG570 said:

Heretical opinions aside, I think that many are underestimating the ebook. The sale of ebooks jumped exponentially in 2004 (I think, give or take a couple years...don't remember). It will only grow as kids get more and more attached to their silly gadgets.

Click to expand...

Not at all. This is undoubtedly how ebooks will spread.

RG570 said:

Even better would be if the education system abandoned books and instead issued students with one ebook reader to use for their entire education. Could you imagine how much money this would save? The children would then naturally gravitate towards reading ebooks instead of lugging around a bag full of old books that stink and just end up cutting you in the end anyway.

Click to expand...

Assuming, of course, these "lifetime ebook readers" lasted more than a year or two. In my lifetime, electronic storage medium has gone from punch cards, to paper tape, to 5 1/4 inch floppy, to hard drives, to CD-ROM, to DVD, to flash drives. Some of these mediums can no longer be read. Cell phones have only been out for a few years and we're already on our third or fourth generation.

I think we'd spend a whole lot more replacing ebook readers every few years than we do on textbooks that can be reused from year to year.

ETA: Old books stink? I love the smell of used book stores! To each his own.

Paper doesn't last?

Yeah . . . sure.
I work with fifteenth century paper manuscripts. I have roughly fifty books, printed on paper, before 1800, and another 50 or so printed between 1800 and 1890.

Quality paper lasts extremely well. High acid paper doesn't -- the paper that was, until about two years ago, used in most paperback books.

And most e-books have an interface that's total crap. I say this as someone who has read, made, and collected royalties on more than a few.

The printed codex book has an interface that's been completely debugged. Two thousand years of use lets you do that kind of engineering.

A quality codex will work, just fine, without an external power source, a hundred years from now.

I guarantee that any current e-book won't.

Folks, it's not an either or thing; both e-books (and, by the way, I don't consider an html page an e-book; I want more than that if I'm screen reading) and codex books, are like the manuscripts, scrolls, tablets, and clay jars before them, just containers for text, for data. That's all books are; containers.

Your need for a data container may change; that doesn't mean that the container is no longer useful.

I'd rather see ephemera published in digital form, and more quality built to last books printed, personally, but then the archivist in me panics: even cheap pulp paper has better long-term viability than a digital file.

Indeed, the best format depends on a great many things. In areas were content does not change rapidly those piles of highschool textbooks being signed out each year are a good investment. Although I do wish there was a similar "rental" system for universities or more use of e-versions because that textbook market is pretty wasteful--and everytime I see students weilding bright pink highlighters over a $100 dollar textbooks I wince.

The conversation's more complex than most people seem to think.

If a teacher wants to get hold of articles & chapters in order to create her/his own custom text for students, there's places to go for that, like this one that's been around for years: Copyright.com

Plenty of standard references are readily available in e-book formats, but when monoliths like Amazon.com keep actively screwing around with "standard" formats, life sucks. Anyone know when Amazon's gonna start selling in MS Reader format again, or maybe Acrobat...?

When a college student needs a "Cliff's Notes," it's easier to download instantly than hope that particular book is available at the library or bookstore.

Some campuses are big on making all their texts available to students via secure sites.

With all the books being foisted on students down to gradeschool level, there is indeed rising interest in just loading the kid's laptop with the texts using DRM protocols. Everyone makes their cut, nobody's got to print & distribute huge thick books, or store them from year to year.

And let's not forget things like Project Gutenberg, where hard-to-find & classic books can be obtained cheap or free.

Support e-books, but don't give me any nonsense about how they're a "higher form" & there's some massive conspiracy against 'em.

two words.

power failure.

besides, there's just something magical about curling up with your favorite paperback; all yellow with age and worn around the edges 'cause you've read it over and over and over again.

for me, it's the Jungle Book.