Look, monopolies over published media are no big deal.
Pretty fiery first installment here. No pun intended.
Amazon & The Economic War Of 2010
The river is eating its own. Over the last week there has been much discussion of what is going to happen in the aftermath of Amazon's declaration of economic warfare against Macmillan.
In an unbelievably aggressive move last Friday, Amazon pulled all Macmillan titles from its listings. This of course is a crippling attack on Macmillan.
Since then Amazon has "restored" the publisher's listings but without the necessary "buy buttons" to actually purchase titles. Stay classy, Bezos.
The argument is auspiciously over what a $9.99 price-point set by Amazon for electronic books does for publisher prestige. The reality is the disagreement between Amazon and now two publishers (Hachette has taken up arms with Macmillan) is about control. Amazon wants it. The publishers are unwilling to relinquish it.
What is astounding to me is that there has never been a clearer case for antitrust investigation. When a retailer holds enough distribution and sales power to threaten manufacturing (in this case a publisher) entity with oblivion you have a unfair marketplace.
But then again Obama had a pretty cozy (Obama released exclusive publications through Amazon in 2008) relationship with Amazon during his campaign so... Yeah.
The best place to go to read up on this insane battle is over at the MobyLives blog at Meville House. Check out the advertisement that Macmillan put in the NYT last week. Awesome stuff.
The best piece taking the technological long view of this skirmish can be read over at arstechnica.com. The e-book market is going to turn into the wild west and the e-book consumers will be pulling their hair out in droves before this is over.
I foresee a handy key chain for all your different publisher exclusive e-book readers. When the corporate gluttony is suppressed, we may yet find a useful technological innovation in all this.
Pretty amazing. Amazon dot com. Modern day Cronos.
J.D. Salinger
I was still on my hiatus when two major luminaries of 20th century literature passed last week. As regulars know, I'm not one to throw my thimbleful into subjects as vast as the late Howard Zinn and J.D. Salinger. I will however tip my hat to a couple of summations worth your while.
And one that I found particularly foolish.
First off is the New York Times gossipy, almost dissenting look into the life of the mysterious and apparently very creepy Salinger. Most of the articles materials are derived from Salinger's daughter and her 2000 memoir, Dream Catcher.
Here's the link to the New York Times meta-obituary.
For a more substantive and less of a tabloid scandal air look to Robert McCrum's piece in the Guardian.
Only one issue with McCrum's article. Philip Roth and Gore Vidal are the "last of the Mohicans" in American letters?
Oh my... It seems my fears are confirmed. No one is aware that Toni Morrison is still alive.
Howard Zinn
Over the last week I've enjoyed reading the dissenting views of the late historian's chief work, A People History Of The United States. I know the positives. I really wanted to hear what negatives people could come up with.
Zinn's career is interesting and his chief work is one of the most important books recently published. He was a bit of a one trick pony, in my humble estimation, and as such the sea of his latter publications became narrowed on current affairs and politics. With this his personal political motivations as a historian and writer became evident.
This is typically a transgression worthy of the scarlet letter "S" for historians. As in slanted or skewed.
A People's History has yet weathered the storm admirably. Mainly due to the fact that it is a groundbreaking and comprehensive work that has been tended to and updated by Zinn like a monk in his garden. So while the threat of his political tittle-tattle should have endangered his legacy, we find instead a singular work that is current, up-to-date and important.
Most of the criticism that has been leveled its way has been centered on the updates Zinn has made to bring the book up to current times. Still, the research for the more historical claims is rarely questions.
But like I said, I enjoyed the last week's slew of arguments against Zinn. The best of which is Steve Haycox's amateurish discussion of both Salinger and Zinn in the Anchorage Daily News.
It sums up the dissenting view nicely. It goes like this: Lead with a tepid summation. Call left leaning people foolish and uncritical. Then offer unsubstantiated generalizations about what kind of person enjoys the said work. All this is then confused as critical acumen.
Haycox offers up gems like: "Most professional historians dismiss "A People's History" for its one-dimensionality and its presentism."
Really, Steve? Most pros, huh? Any names? Besides you, of course. I know. Citing a source is such tedious work.
Here though, is the real gem of Haycox's confused meandering.
If they're so flawed, why then are these books so popular? The answer lies in the careless habits of readers. Neither book requires much work. With Holden Caulfield, one need not think, only indulge the first salient feeling that floats up from the page. With Zinn's impression of history, one need not think much, only so far as a naÏve condemnation of all power.
These are not very useful prescriptions for serious learning. While they do alert readers to the need for criticism, they provide few lessons and too few tools for moving it forward.
I see what happened here. Steve equates these two books with what people on the left like to read about. He's talking about what people take from these books. He's talking about people on the left. WTF.
Fans. That's really what you're writing about here, Steve. You are concerned about what a faceless and indeterminate population might take from two books that you obviously are either unfamiliar with or have not read in years.
I really can't say this enough. Read, damn it! Read the books you review and write of them in themselves. Please, don't lump two of the 20th century's most celebrated works into a category because of critical observations equivalent to reasons for or against an American Idol contestant based on regional loyalty.
It's nonsense. The guy has a Ph.D. I wonder if he remembers how he got it.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment