How will Books Survive?

The digital world changed media and everyone knows that. Self-publishing became possible and then returned to difficult. Hollywood and film creators had to make major adjustments as Net creators became significant artistic contributors. Journalists and Book Writers felt the changes also. Some incorporated the various mediums and kept bleeding ink regardless of the devices available. Some chose one method over the other and found their audience. And then there were some like me - who have utilized various resources to learn about the possibilities.

Have you (as a writer or a reader) ever pondered why we read or write? Have you ever just sat somewhere quietly wondering if all the books in the library really "deserve" to be there? Who decides why those books are there? Is it based on popularity? Is it based on book sales numbers? Is it based on scruples? Is it based on government contributions and say so? Maybe all of the above, but when I visit a library or book store, not only do I feel slightly overwhelmed by the number of books on the shelves, but I get this strange sensation that too many books are ignored or never even looked at - though they've been sitting on the shelf forever. I feel that is an unspoken tragedy of the reading and writing "world".

I'm a writing addict. For every 10 pages that I write, I read maybe a paragraph of someone else's writing. Perhaps my addiction and approach to writing is not "recommended" by the experts, but whenever I've done anything "artistic" I usually discover that too much advice or guidance stifles my creativity.

Yesterday since I had some extra shopping money saved, I went to Barnes and Noble to see if Suzanne Collins "Sunrise on the Reaping" was available for purchase. There is a nice rack with all of the previous titles in that series promoting her works, but the newest isn't there yet. I sighed feeling that my eagerness to read her latest was met with "Early Bird doesn't always get the worm" and then I decided to look for some of my other favorite authors. Though I prefer Cassandra Clare over Stephanie Meyers, I decided to finally read a Meyers book instead of just waiting for the next film. I purchased a copy of "Midnight Sun" which isn't an installment book to the Twilight Saga - it's more like a companion book showing Edward's perspective instead of Bella's narration. It's quite thick at 817 pages, so if I actually get through it, it may be one of the longest books I've actually read.

I also picked up the latest edition of "Poets & Writers" magazine which is one of my favorite periodicals because it always presents contests for chapbooks and other publishing opportunities, plus information on scholarships, conferences, and retreats. For a solitary writing addict like me, those "adventures" and the idea of spending time with other writing addicts - sounds sublime. Those thoughts and hopes get me excited in a dreamy way and inspire me to enjoy my addiction.

Reading a newspaper article or a magazine editorial is much easier for a reader who likes "reading snacks" over a full-course meal like a hefty 1000 page read. Similar to puzzles, I think. I've known puzzle addicts who won't even look at a puzzle that has less than 1000 pieces. When I see a puzzle over 500 pieces, I laugh and snub it immediately. As if. There's no way I'm going to waste my time and patience on a 2000 piece puzzle when I'd rather be painting or taking photographs or traveling or writing my own poetry and stories. Maybe no one will notice my poem or my painting, but to me, the enjoyment of that process is much more satisfying.

As I read an editorial in the P&W magazine, I noticed that the writer had quoted another writer who had said something about what readers are looking for. I guess all writers are trying to understand readers wants because without readers, the writers are just talking to the walls. It's not just about some desire to be a "best seller" or some desire to make a famous name that will collect dust on a library shelf in another century. No, the writers want to provide material that readers are satisfied with. So the quote expressed something about how readers are looking for something "different" --- but I disagree. I don't think that's the word that clearly defines what readers are looking for.

There are plenty of genres, topics, stories, and poetry already on the shelf that would qualify for the definition of "different" --- so my disagreement is that the proof of "different" is easy to point out at a library or a book store. I believe that the readers are looking for something "challenging" --- and I'm not talking about vocabulary challenges. I have previously written articles here at Vocal in other communities mentioning my thoughts on Newspaper journalism and on Smut Novels. Some would call that "reading" a "different" kind of reading, but by the general consensus of "popular opinion" ---- and the statistics as shown of "best selling" writing -- "Different" is not what the readers are looking for. They want Challenging, and to me that translates into Trouble, because they either don't know what they are asking for or they are too ashamed to admit it honestly. Challenging is already published, but not promoted at either the library or the book store, because Challenging is another word for Avante Garde or Deviant, and those "genres" are not typically approved (for reputation's sake) at your local library or renowned book store.

Deep sigh. Subversive poets who like Freudian humor have been toying with these notions for centuries, but as a New Millenium writer I find the dodging of honest criticism annoying as we seek our true voice and our true audience.

How will books survive if we already see that Newspapers are starting to fade out? How will books survive if printed materials are believed to be antiquated, unnecessary, or overpriced? How will books survive if the librarians and book store clerks are not avid readers who can direct the curious or confused to the appropriate section? These are the questions that both addicts of writing or reading should be asking themselves.