Shocked, Shocked

You all know I am a fan of books, right? This house is full of them. From the cookbooks in the kitchen to the gardening books in the breakfast nook (where I can look out into the garden), fiction in the bedrooms, and art and museum books (along with the Onion’s Our Dumb World and Dissection: Photographs of a Rite of Passage in American Medicine 1880–1930) on the coffee table, this house is a monument to the publishing arts.

So you can imagine my dismay when I watched this. Actually it’s a great interview  of Jane Friedman by Mike Hyatt and well worth your time. In the first discussion, though, Jane says (and I don’t doubt her) she expects to see fewer nonfiction titles published.

In that same week I had a Skype meeting with Tami Heim and she mentioned a similar theory. It’s because people can look up things on the Internet, you see. We don’t need how-to books anymore. That’s the assumption, anyway.

My problems with this idea are myriad. I love having physical reference books. (Caveat: I happily pay $30 a year to have my digital copy of Merriam-Webster.) I love cookbooks and gardening books in particular.

Turning the pages of my beautifully photographed gardening books (The Landscape Design Answer Book, for example, or The Abundant Garden, which once served as an Artist Date for me, all by itself) simply makes me happy. It’s an experience my Kindle can’t give me. And unless you apply a discerning eye to which gardening website you’re taking advice from, you could end up with a bare backyard. (Everybody thinks he’s an expert. Kinda like me.)

And don’t get me started on recipe websites. They haven’t been tested, people. (OK, some have; but many are just Jane Doe’s grandmother’s recipe from 1964. Ugh. Trust me when I tell you the ’60s were not the golden age of American cookery, Julia Child notwithstanding.) And that’s just the beginning. They’re often incomplete or confused. Sometimes they’re just … not good. No, give me a good old-fashioned printed cookbook with recipes that have been tested by the author and by hired testers. (My two faves—A Homemade Life and The Sweet Life in Paris—although not true cookbooks, actually led me to the authors’ websites, and these I do trust: Molly Wizenberg over at Orangette. And David Leibovitz.)

And then there’s Wikipedia. (That’s a post all by itself.) Suffice it to say it cannot be trusted for much, and the quality is all over the map. I’m not convinced the uncurated product of the hive mind is a good source of general information. So if nonfiction books begin to fade away, doesn’t this present a problem for scholars? For our collective knowledge?

Tami suspects books will change in ways we can’t imagine; she thinks they’ll become more like blogs. This notion is certainly similar what I’ve been reading about the move to electronic textbooks: we can update them and correct them.

But … eeek. That’s what those “experts” are doing over at Wikipedia: correcting each other and fighting about who’s right. So will we have electronic libraries, places where information is “safe” from “correction”? And does, say, Dava Sobel’s lovely book Longitude (one of my all-time favorite nonfiction books) really need to be corrected?

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Posted in The Book Biz | Tagged as: , , , | Bookmark the permalink | Leave a trackback: Trackback URL

4 Comments

  1. Posted 7 November, 2011 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    The How-To genre has been replaced by YouTube. I learned how to edit in Final Cut Pro by watching 15 year-old kids in England creating video screen-caps. The $30 I paid for the 600-page book “Final Cut Pro Bible” was a total waste.

    • Jamie
      Posted 7 November, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

      It is the Irishman’s contention that anything you need to know you can find on YouTube, and I am increasingly convinced he’s right. :) However, I keep watching that video about how to fold a fitted sheet over and over and I still can’t do it! Hahahahahaha.

  2. Posted 8 November, 2011 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    “the uncurated product of the hive mind” – LOVE that phrase. I tell my English students that if they want to use Wikipedia as a source, they have to verify it with a secondary source.

    • Jamie
      Posted 8 November, 2011 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      Thank you. :) I think Wikipedia can be a good place to start. I like scrolling down to the bottom and referencing the books and articles the entry-writer referenced (in other words, the original source material) and going to official websites and so forth. So it has its uses. But I don’t allow a Wikipedia article as a citation (i.e., footnote) in books I’m editing, ever.

2 Trackbacks

  1. By Bonus: Some of My Favorite Nonfiction on 8 December, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    [...] intended to run this post right after this one about the possibility that we’ll see less published nonfiction in the coming years. But something [...]

  2. By The Bonus Round (2011 Edition) on 29 December, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    [...] Charing Cross Road (Helene Hanff) About a Boy (Nick Hornby) Abundant Garden, The (Denk, Prinzing) Age of Conversation, The (Benedetta Craveri) Age of Miracles, The (Ellen [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*