There has been plenty of chatter in the last few weeks about ebooks and ebook readers, technologies which might or might not dramatically transform how we buy and read books. But there has also been the odd item here and there speculating on the future of reading, examining how internet usage might affect how people actually look for and absorb information.
There is a school of thought that says that Gutenberg's invention of the printing press - leading to the demise of the illuminated manuscript and the transfer of knowledge by linear type - actually affected the way that people absorbed ideas and information and that Western Rationalism might not have taken hold without the orderly presentation of text. So it is not implausible to imagine that as more and more knowledge and information is transfered via the internet, with popup windows, embedded video, infographic boxes and all the other eye-catching frippery competing for attention, we might witness significant changes in the way we read, and perhaps in the way we actually think.
This is probably already happening - in The Observer John Naughton quotes a report which described information seeking behaviour as 'horizontal, bouncing, checking and viewing in nature.' Teenagers, I was told today, start reading at the centre of a website moving outwards from the middle when something captures their digitally native eyes.
Of course not all books are linear - our sister company, Dorling Kindersley for example produces the most wonderfully designed and illustrated guides and reference books, but for fiction, generally, linearity is the rule. Beginnings, middles and ends. Words following words.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying that in a few weeks Penguin will be embarking on an experiment in storytelling (yes, another one, I hear you sigh). We've teamed up with some interesting folk and challenged some of our top authors to write brand new stories that take full advantage of the functionalities that the internet has to offer - this will be great writing, but writing in a form that would not have been possible 200, 20 or even 2 years ago. If you want to be alerted when this project launches sign up here - all will be revealed in March.
Jeremy Ettinghausen, Digital Publisher
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
Add a Comment
“Sort of good news”…. Would you explain the implied qualification there? What makes it not simply good news?
I would think the qualification would be based upon these factors: (1) They were in this racket to begin with; (2) When they backed down, it was not from/with any moral realizations, but simply as a business decision; (3) They defended their actions in their press release, with no apologies.
Taking all three of these factors together, if they ever work out a cost benefit analysis which shows the profits they can make by getting back into this racket would outway the financial negatives of it, they would start doing it again in a heartbeat–don’t think otherwise.
“sort of” because of the inevitable backlash that these types of things engender and what Matthew said. I didn’t feel like they were making a particularly strong statement about what their previous actions were, even though I’m pleased with their decision.