Wired: We Need to Move Towards the Talmudic Reading of Every Published Book

A Wired writer argues convincingly that there is merit to opening up every book via a certain kind of digital publishing to create a vivid public world of text and commentary for every paragraph of writing.

Now surely this mode of publishing will lead to a Talmudic-looking reading, by establishing quasi-canonical texts and a means for discussion and debate around them.

But what would be missing from such a universe? The silent hand of the redactors. All of us who have labored over the study of the Talmud for years know that it has a deliberate set of logical, rhetorical and stylistic characteristics imposed with care on the discussions of the texts by the work of its editors.

By contrast, the open model encouraged by Thompson in Wired, would lack such a finishing. And though its product would make some entertaining and wholly lively reading day-by-day, it would not produce the kind of lasting documentary legacy like that of the Talmud, a crafted dialectical literature whose collective wisdom and commentary in their final form grew out of the minds of compilers with a clear and consistent vision.
Clive Thompson on the Future of Reading in a Digital World

When McKenzie Wark wrote Gamer Theory—an analysis of why people enjoy playing videogames—Harvard University Press published it as a conventional hardcover. But Wark also put it online using CommentPress. The free blog theme blew the book open into a series of conversations; every paragraph could spawn its own discussion forum for readers.

Sure enough, hundreds dove in, and pretty soon Gamer Theory had sparked erudite exchanges on everything from Plato's cave to Schopenhauer's ideas on boredom. It felt as much like a rangy, excited Twitter conversation as it did a book. "It was all because we opened it up and gave readers a way to interact with each other," Wark says. "It changed the way they read the book."

Books are the last bastion of the old business model—the only major medium that still hasn't embraced the digital age. Publishers and author advocates have generally refused to put books online for fear the content will be Napsterized. And you can understand their terror, because the publishing industry is in big financial trouble, rife with layoffs and restructurings. Literary pundits are fretting: Can books survive in this Facebooked, ADD, multichannel universe?

To which I reply: Sure they can. But only if publishers adopt Wark's perspective and provide new ways for people to encounter the written word. We need to stop thinking about the future of publishing and think instead about the future of reading.

Every other form of media that's gone digital has been transformed by its audience. Whenever a newspaper story or TV clip or blog post or white paper goes online, readers and viewers begin commenting about it on blogs, snipping their favorite sections, passing them along. The only reason the same thing doesn't happen to books is that they're locked into ink on paper.

Release them, and you release the crowd. BookGlutton, a site that launched last year, has put 1,660 books online and created tools that let readers form groups to discuss their favorite titles. Meanwhile, Bob Stein, an e-publishing veteran from the CD-ROM days, put the Doris Lessing book The Golden Notebook online with an elegant commenting system and hired seven writers to collaboratively read it.

Neither move should come as a surprise. Books have a centuries-old tradition of annotation and commentary, ranging from the Talmud and scholarly criticism to book clubs and marginalia. Stein believes that if books were set free digitally, it could produce a class of "professional readers"—people so insightful that you'd pay to download their footnotes. Sound unlikely? It already exists in the real world: Microsoft researcher Cathy Marshall has found that university students carefully study used textbooks before buying them, because they want to acquire the smartest notes.

The technology is here. Book nerds are now working on XML-like markup languages that would allow for really terrific linking and mashups. Imagine a world where there's a URL for every chapter and paragraph in a book—every sentence, even. Readers could point to their favorite sections in a MySpace update or instant message or respond to an argument by copiously linking to the smartest passages in a recent best seller.

This would massively improve what bibliophiles call book discovery. You're far more likely to hear about a book if a friend has highlighted a couple brilliant sentences in a Facebook update—and if you hear about it, you're far more likely to buy it in print. Yes, in print: The few authors who have experimented with giving away digital copies (mostly in sci-fi) have found that they end up selling more print copies, because their books are discovered by more people.

I'm not suggesting that books need always be social. One of the chief pleasures of a book is mental solitude, that deep, quiet focus on an author's thoughts—and your own. That's not going away. But books have been held hostage offline for far too long. Taking them digital will unlock their real hidden value: the readers.

1 comment:

Shai Gluskin said...

Tzvee, a quick check of the beautifully designed The Golden Notebook site shows there hasn't been any activity on discussion boards since February. Yes, the technology is elegant, the comparisons to a Talmudic approach interesting, but I just don't think people want to comment on books one paragraph at a time. People love Amazon.com reader reviews, but don't find a compelling need to tear apart every line of a book.

I think the place to start for this kind of thing would be song lyrics. If there are any investors wanting to collaborate on that one, I'm a Drupal developer and it would be fun to work on this.

People, first and foremost are fulfilling a need when they participate on the Internet by writing something. They need information (figure out how to something on their computer or around the house...), what is the best widget to purchase, or in the case of Facebook, have fun being social with friends.

People like Twitter because it's a tool for mediating "Now" that has never been available. You build your network starting from people you actually know. But more than any other platform you have the ability to get useful information from people you don't know. It's not usually useful information you were seeking, it's useful information you aren't seeking!

Finally, to your point about redacting. I wholeheartedly agree. The redactors redacted from raw material. This wave of social media combined with blogging and other web 2.0 stuff is going to provide the material for the future redactors.