On Twitter
- Nobody's shoes squeak as loudly as mine. I must walk wrong. 3 days ago
- Correct twice a day. http://t.co/QPRKHe16 3 days ago
- First pair of glasses in more than 10 years arriving in a few weeks. I am weirdly, dorkily excited about it. 1 week ago
- More updates...
Posting tweet...
-
Recent Posts
- Suit for Hire
- I Know What Conservatives Like. I Know What Liberals Want.
- They Live
- Lordy Lordy.
- Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs and the Wrong Question
- And My Dream of a Better iPod Takes Another Blow
- If the Beowulf Poet Translated the Ewoks’ Song from Return of the Jedi
- The Unelucidated Facebook Tragedy
Category Archives: Essays
They Live
You’re a drifter — down on your luck, roaming from town to town with a bedroll and a tool chest strapped to your back. Everywhere around you, other people seem to be getting the breaks — although, admittedly, many more seem to be just as up against it as you are. You find a job as a scab laborer on a construction site, and a squatter’s village that at least offers a hot meal and a place to sleep. Despite all this, you don’t let it get you down. You still believe firmly in the lessons you learned as a kid: that the world is fundamentally a fair place, that people will treat you well if you treat them well, and that working hard and playing by the rules will one day get you to a place of comfort and security; maybe not the mansion on the hill, but not the squatter’s camp either. America still works, you tell yourself, and that gives you the strength to pick yourself up and keep trying.
Then one day you put on a pair of sunglasses and see things you never saw before, and your world goes to shit.
John Carpenter’s They Live looked unflinchingly at the underside of Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America. While Gordon Gekko was rhapsodizing about the goodness of greed, migrant worker George Nada trawled through a stunted shadow economy that grew like a fungus on America’s underbelly. They Live presents an America that seems decent enough to justify George’s faith: the squatters’ camp where he finds shelter runs on compassion and good old American hard work, a true expression of the generosity we hold as one of our core values. The problem, as it turns out, is the ultimate viper in the garden: the elite feeding on America’s underclass are actually aliens in human form, hopscotching rapaciously across the galaxy like a cross between Gordon Gekko and Galactus. Even more heartbreaking is when George discovers why he was able to maintain his faith in the American dream while it fell apart around him. The aliens have submerged the culture in subliminal messages, with every surface blaring a mute clarion of stasis and conformity. Thanks to a pair of sunglasses invented by the revolutionaries fighting the aliens, George walks through L.A. and finally sees, in literal black and white, the new guiding principles of America. SLEEP 8 HOURS A DAY. MARRY AND REPRODUCE. WATCH T.V. STAY ASLEEP. CONFORM. OBEY.

What makes They Live resonate so much for me, a decade after I first saw it and well after it was first released, is what it reveals about paranoia and the comforts of conspiracy. While the film bears the trappings of a sci-fi-based horror movie, its central conceit — that American society is being undermined by alien invaders — is actually more comforting than frightening, because it supports the premise that people are too fundamentally decent to create the kind of society depicted in They Live. Suddenly, we didn’t do it — it was done to us. This preserves our ideas of our own goodness while offering a tantalizing promise of redemption. An alien menace is a menace that can be fought and destroyed; what came from outside can be sent back outside. Sure, defeating a technologically advanced alien race is not going to be a walk in the park. But if there’s one thing we know how to do as humans, it’s kill those who are different from us. Whether the solution proved to be sunglasses, computer viruses or red anti-alien virus powder, we’d find a way. If, however, the problem turns out to be us — if we, not alien invaders, made the world around us, with all its greed and its waste and its callousness — then we’re probably screwed.
Being the object of a conspiracy, with untold numbers of nefarious actors working tirelessly to keep us in the dark and helpless, confirms our importance — it reassures us that we are dangerous and worth going to great efforts to deceive and subjugate. Furthermore, a world beset by conspiracy is a world that is at least governed by some kind of order and meaning, even if that order is largely bent against us and we are helpless to do anything about it. The world of They Live is a perversely tempting one, because then at least things would make sense — there would be a reason why everything was so fucked up and wrong.
As I get older, I find that in addition to constantly beginning statements by saying, “as I get older,” I increasingly subscribe to what I call the Belzer Dichotomy of Human Cognition. That is an affected way of saying that I agree with comedian Richard Belzer when he said:
You are either a conspiracy nut or a coincidence nut.
Conspiracies of course are Belzer’s schtick, and he’s carved out a secure niche for himself as the thinking paranoid’s comic of choice. To a conspiracy buff, “coincidence” is a slightly dirty word, a mark of intellectual pansyhood, a confession that one lacks the imagination or the courage to see life as it really is. But I think Belzer was actually on to something quite universal and profound when he said that. We could rephrase the line like this:
You either believe that everything, no matter how trivial, happens for a reason, or you believe that even seemingly important things can happen for no reason at all.
This is about as basic a distinction between human consciousnesses as you can make, and it doesn’t take a great deal of observation to perceive that conspiracy nuts vastly outnumber coincidence nuts. We are biologically hardwired to notice patterns and to ascribe significance to them. In a nutshell, it is why religion exists. Religions vary greatly over times and places, but the one thing they virtually all have in common is the reassurance that the world around you was created, and is advancing, with some kind of purpose. That sense of purpose is why people profess to believe things that are, by any waking, rational standard, absurd. What follows is not an original observation by any means, but even so: if you could have somehow reached adulthood without any religious indoctrination or awareness, and then been approached by a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim aiming to make a convert out of you, would you take his or her claims at all seriously? Would it seem reasonable to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, or that illiterate Mohammed was given the power to read by an angel, whatever that is?
I think the honest answer has to be no, but I understand now that the question is beside the point. I think a great many people who consider themselves religious either don’t actually believe the tenets of their doctrine or else are so indifferent to them that it makes no difference. It is the consolation and comfort that are important; the precepts and dogma are just tools, arbitrary elements to give the conscious, waking part of the brain something to do, like playing solitaire on a computer.
There was a story recently published on Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish (I couldn’t find it again to link it) about a devout Christian who lost his child in an accident. He was overwhelmed with grief, as anyone would be. Where he perhaps took it a step further was when he asserted that the accident was God’s punishment for his sins — that the “accident” was, in effect, his fault. His family and friends tried to insist that he was wrong, that God did not work that way and that sometimes bad things just happened to those who apparently did not deserve them. He would not be persuaded, and eventually explained that he preferred to believe God had murdered his child to expiate his own sins (I’m paraphrasing slightly), because to contemplate the alternative — that his child had died, and his world been destroyed, for no reason at all — was actually more horrifying.
The point of all this is to illustrate that people will go to tremendous intellectual lengths to see the world as being guided by some kind of purpose, and that if they have to choose between an evil purpose and no purpose, they will mostly choose the former. You can see this all too clearly today. There has always been a paranoid strain in American politics, and I’m not going to claim that it’s worse today than it has ever been in the past. But the advent of the Internet and the coarsening of network news (which exists almost entirely to frighten people into watching) has expanded the scope of our fears to a degree that seems without precedent. We believe that the president is a foreign-born socialist mole aimed at instituting either a secular Communist paradise or sharia law, we can’t quite decide which; we believe that the Bush administration knew of the September 11 attacks and allowed them to occur. We believe scientists are making up global warming and hiding the evidence that vaccines cause autism. We believe in a “gay agenda” to convert straight people into homosexuals, as if the gay community were organized like the Mormon church. We believe that the media is hiding the truth about both Obama’s birth certificate and high-fructose corn syrup. Whatever we believe, there’s always a “them” to blame it on. If only we could take care of them, fix them or teach them or avoid them or just plain get rid of them, things would go back to the way they’re supposed to be. How appropriate that Carpenter named his film with that anonymous, ominous pronoun. They do live, and They are everywhere.
[caption id="attachment_408" align="aligncenter" width="851" caption=""It figures it would be something like this.""]
[/caption]
Me, I admit it: I’m a coincidence nut. Sometimes — most of the time — shit just happens. I’m not saying that there aren’t instances where evil or self-serving people collude in secret for their own ends. And I’m certainly not saying the government and the media are to be trusted. I’m just saying that the global, sweeping, everyone-else-is-in-on-it kind of conspiracy is a figment of our collective imagination — an understandable but irrational belief stemming from our need to occupy a purposeful universe. There simply aren’t enough people in the world smart enough, wicked enough or determined enough to fake global warming or hide Barack Obama’s true identity or whatever. Someone always screws up, and someone always talks. It’s human nature. There are very few conspiracy theories that can’t be explained by a mix of incompetence, happenstance and ordinary self-interest.
We are small beings on a big world in an incomprehensibly vast universe. Even the best and brightest of us are terribly limited in our perceptions. Our brains take cognitive shortcuts that make us feel smarter than we are, and because we spend our entire lives stuck in our own heads, immersed in our subjectivity alone, we naturally interpret everything around us in terms of how it affects us personally. It takes a certain leap of imagination to jump out of this view, and it takes something perhaps more difficult: a willingness to see yourself as one tiny, tiny part of an immense whole, a whole that is largely indifferent to what you do or even to whether you’re there at all. There is no plan. There are just atoms in their peculiar orbits, joining and separating, colliding or drifting for a time into emptiness.
I get why people find this scary. True freedom always is. It scares me sometimes. I have no one to blame if I am unhappy or end up frittering my life away. And if I live in a world in which people seem to be greedy, short-sighted or just out for themselves, I have only to think of the too-frequent times when I have been one or more of those things, and to reflect on the multitudes of people in the world who have those qualities to an even greater degree than I do. It doesn’t take special sunglasses to see why a world made by people as flawed as us would turn out to be so flawed.
Posted in Articles, Essays
Tagged 1980s, alien, coincidence, conspiracy, Dan Wiencek, fear, free will, horror movie, John Carpenter, paranoia, religion, Richard Belzer, Ronald Reagan, They Live
Leave a comment
Truth and Beauty: Tender Is the Night
While traveling in Spain I finally read Scott Fitzgerald’s Tender Is the Night. It seemed a nice “continental” choice for a trip to Europe.
I have a soft spot for Scott (whom I occasionally call by his first name). Raymond Chandler felt that Fitzgerald just missed being a great writer, and I can see his point: an awful lot of Fitzgerald’s work is either not quite formed (his first two novels, which honestly I have been so far unable to finish) or commercial and vaguely hacky (much of his short fiction, although many of his stories are beautiful and completely honest). Someone once said Fitzgerald is a writer best discovered when young, and as a no-longer-quite-young person, I think that’s true. He has a young person’s longing to be swept up and away, a young person’s ideals, a young person’s eagerness to admire — even to worship — and to mold himself in a beautiful and noble image.
Yet while I am no longer able to look at life quite as breathlessly as his characters do, I sympathize with, and even admire, their determination to live in a kind of refined and rarefied grace. I am nearly Fitzgerald’s age when he died, and I marvel at how strong his idealist streak remained through years that tried him severely. I can’t remember where I read it, but I recall he once described Tender Is the Night as a “testament of faith.” Partly it was simply faith in himself, in his ability to persevere while living with a mad wife, deepening debts and dwindling inspiration. And partly it was faith that the beautiful illusion was still worth cherishing, worth nurturing, worth bringing, however improbably, toward reality. Beauty is truth, as Keats said and Fitzgerald believed, and it’s no coincidence that a Keats verse inspired the novel’s title.
The beauty of Tender lies in its characterizations, both those of the human characters and the settings they inhabit. Fitzgerald shows us a French Riviera that is sun-baked, aloof and rather incomplete without the cosmopolitan visitors who give it life. He draws us into the action, as he did in The Great Gatsby, through an observer, the young film star Rosemary Hoyt. Like many Fitzgerald heroines, she inspires and expects admiration, but her vanity is excused by her youth, and we admire her seriousness, her sense of duty, and her devotion to her mother, even if it sometimes borders on idolatry. Through her we meet an array of colorful, briskly drawn characters: dissolute Abe North, the crass, volatile McKiscos, and Tommy Barban, a hotheaded brawler with a surprising gift for biding his time. At the heart of the novel lies the golden couple Dick and Nicole Diver, who appear to the naive Rosemary to have everything: looks, money, poise, discernment, and a knack for making everything around them seem charged with exclusivity and promise. The talented psychiatrist Dick, in particular, has a preternatural gift for social life. To be included in his company is to feel an elevated sense of privilege, to perceive oneself as an irreplaceable component of a fragile, evanescent moment in time. Dick Diver seems to have successfully elevated living itself to the realm of art, and it makes him irresistible.
The Divers, as every American lit student knows, are based on Gerald and Sara Murphy, a pair of expatriate socialites who counted among their circle of friends pretty much everyone you would have wanted to know if you were at all interested in the post-war arts scene: Hemingway, Picasso, Cole Porter, Jean Cocteau, Dorothy Parker, and, to their eventual consternation, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald. Like the Divers, the Murphys were wealthy but not gauche, trendsetters rather than followers, and had a gift for la dolce vita (or whatever that would be in French) that made them seem even more brilliant than they undoubtedly were. Virtually everyone who came into the Murphys’ orbit rhapsodized about them, as the rootless expats in Tender rhapsodize about the Divers. But Fitzgerald had bigger things in mind than a fictionalized biography of two of his friends, and that ambition elevates the novel to near-greatness — and provides its fatal flaw.
The problem is that Dick and Nicole aren’t just based on Gerald and Sara Murphy; they’re based just as much on Scott and Zelda, and for all his ecstatic prose and pulpy plot twists (including a duel with pistols and a corpse found in Rosemary’s bedroom), Scott can’t fully hide the seams. As Rosemary moves deeper into the Divers’ world, she falls in love with Dick and also discovers the couple’s dark secret: Nicole is schizoid, and Dick fell in love with her when she was his patient. Their marriage uneasily combines romance and therapy, devotion and obligation, and as Dick comes to reciprocate Rosemary’s affections and Nicole grows increasingly restive in her role as patient and wife, it unravels and eventually falls apart.
Like Scott Fitzgerald, Dick Diver started his career with a meteoric publishing success but has latterly found himself treading water, fiddling with a vast follow-up volume he can’t make any progress on. (The theme of squandered potential recurs again and again in Tender, from Abe North, a once-promising composer who hasn’t written in years, to young Rosemary Hoyt, who cannot find a success to match that of her first breakout role, in a film called, with suitable Freudian resonance, Daddy’s Girl. The title is doubly gruesome, referring not only to Rosemary’s child-like worship of Dick but to Nicole’s sexual abuse at the hands of her father which drove her to madness.) Like Scott, Dick’s mentally ill wife drains him of his creativity and ambitions. And like Scott, Dick drowns his frustration in drink, and drink makes him an asshole and eventually a pariah. In real life, the temperate Murphys cast the sodden Fitzgerald out of their circle after Scott lobbed a garbage can over their garden wall; in the novel, Dick has to carry both the worst of Scott Fitzgerald and the best of Gerald Murphy in his own person, and the combination never fully convinces. For all of Tender’s focus on psychology, Fitzgerald was not a psychological writer in the way someone like Henry James was. What inspired him was personality: that “unbroken series of successful gestures” (as Nick Carraway calls it in The Great Gatsby) by which a person makes himself, like a self-creating deity from mythology, into an object of fascination, grace and beauty. This dynamic, simultaneously noble and absurd, helps to make Gatsby (and its title character) so sympathetic and enduring. Gatsby may be an empty suit, but his emptiness has an integrity: it is all of a piece, the honest core of a man who has chosen to be a surface and to treat the rest of the world as if it were just as artificial, and ripe for reinvention, as himself.
The reason why Dick Diver fails to come convincingly to life is that his creator didn’t fully understand the man who inspired him. An admirer of successful surfaces, Fitzgerald could not see beneath the gestures of Gerald Murphy’s life to the traits that motivated them. The result is a character who, for the love of a starlet half his age, throws away everyone and everything he cares about. One feels neither sympathy for a weak man unable to resist his appetites, nor justified indignation at the callow machinations of a cad. Dick’s fall is not tragic but phlegmatic — he does not have Gatsby’s absurd, touching faith in the rightness of his own destiny. Dick’s desire for a younger woman, and for a renewal of the sense of purpose he felt as a young man, are banal, and Fitzgerald doesn’t do banal — banality is the very thing his characters long to escape.
Fitzgerald imagines the Divers’ marriage as something like a donkey elevator, in which one car could not rise without the other, opposing car falling. As Dick starts to lose himself in his love for Rosemary, Nicole grows more capable and confident. By the novel’s end, Nicole is embarking on a new life with Tommy Barban, her troubles seemingly behind her, while Dick, friendless and on the downward slope of his career, fades into obscurity. As psychology, this is absurd: marriages don’t function on Newtonian principles, certainly not one in which one partner is schizophrenic and the other a hopeless alcoholic. Fitzgerald’s marriage to Zelda took its toll on him, but Zelda did no better in the bargain. Nicole and Dick’s doomed marriage feels like something between redemptive fantasy and painful settling of accounts: Scott lays the blame for his stalled career firmly on Zelda while imagining that his sacrifice was at least worthwhile — that Zelda might have taken his strength and been healed by it. But Scott doesn’t seem to know why this would have happened, and Nicole’s redemption (from a disturbed socialite to a woman redeemed by the love of Tommy Barban) is even more opaque and baffling than Dick’s disgrace.
What I found most rewarding in Tender Is the Night was the myriad ways in which Scott explored, analyzed and obsessed over his own dissolution. Dick Diver is just the most obvious of the novel’s Fitzgerald stand-ins. Abe North carries out the same kind of drunken antics for which Fitzgerald himself became notorious; I am convinced that a prank referred to in the early sections, in which Abe was thrown out of a restaurant for attempting to saw a waiter in half (“Wouldn’t you like to know what was inside a waiter?”), came directly from Fitzgerald’s own life. Dick Diver eventually washes his hands of North, exactly as Gerald Murphy finally had had enough of Scott. Albert McKisco doesn’t find success as a writer until he takes to dumbing down others’ ideas for mass consumption, becoming the hack crowd-pleaser Fitzgerald felt he had become. (“They pay the old whore $4,000 a screw now,” he wrote to Hemingway, referring to the then-astronomical fees his short stories earned.) As a chronicler of the Jazz Age, Fitzgerald never shied away from showing what happened after the party ended, and the characters in Tender Is the Night seem trapped in an endless, Dantean hangover. Everyone’s best days are behind them (even, it seems, young Rosemary Hoyt’s), and no one save for Nicole and Tommy seem to have any idea what to make of the days that remain. Perhaps only a writer as enthralled with youth as Fitzgerald could feel the disappointments of middle age so acutely. Gatsby never lived to see his beautiful surface pit and scar with age, while Nicole Diver must ruefully watch the mirror for signs of sagging and stiffening flesh, and Dick ponders a professional legacy that seems to diminish before his eyes. Not a beautiful vision of life — but a true one.
Posted in Essays
Tagged Gerald Murphy, Hemingway, literature, Lost Generation, novel, Sara Murphy, Scott Fitzgerald, Zelda Fitzgerald
Leave a comment
The iPad and the Dog that Didn’t Bark. (And the Dog that Barked too Soon.)
The product Apple revealed yesterday was largely what most people expected. Called the iPad (well, that name probably wasn’t expected), it is slim and elegant, engineered with meticulous care to do a few things well: deliver the internet, display movies and photographs, play music and serve as an electronic reading device. The latter capability was revealed about halfway through Steve Jobs’ launch presentation, not quite an afterthought but lacking the marquee position of an A-list feature. As Jobs remarked several years ago when dismissing Amazon’s Kindle, people don’t read anymore; certainly they don’t buy books the way they buy music, movies and TV shows. Perhaps this justified the middling prominence of the iBooks application and its accompanying online bookstore, which aims (like the Kindle) to do for reading what iTunes and the iPod have done for music. And perhaps that explains why one of the day’s most significant announcements was made as little more than an aside. “We are also,” said Jobs, not sounding very excited, “very excited about textbooks as well.”
Perhaps Jobs soft-pedaled this announcement because he knew it wasn’t a surprise at all. The night before the iPad launch, McGraw-Hill CEO Terry McGraw spilled many of Steve Jobs’ beans in an interview with CNBC, breezily confirming that Apple was announcing a tablet computer running the iPhone OS, for which McGraw-Hill was collaborating with Apple to provide educational content. It might not appear entirely out of character for Jobs to lop McGraw-Hill out of his presentation, provided it had ever been included — Jobs famously dropped graphics chip vendor ATI from a keynote when they revealed upcoming Mac models before he could. And it prompts a mordant chuckle to imagine the look on Jobs’ face as he watched McGraw blithely steal his thunder. But I give Jobs the benefit of the doubt. It is likely that Apple’s negotiations with textbook publishers are still in progress, and that Apple will formally tout the iPad as an education tool at a later date. Because this arrangement is a very big deal — one that could potentially have a huge impact on both parties.
A little background. When pundits bewail (or laud) the impending “death of print,” the implied subject is usually newspapers and magazines, whose advertising-based revenues have proved impossible to replicate in the online space. To these publishers, the iPad and the devices that will succeed it offer a renewed hope that digital content can actually be monetized through subscriptions to iPad-native versions of their publications. College textbook publishers, though, are in a very similar predicament. Their revenues have been falling, but for a different reason. While newspapers struggle to compete against the resolutely free (as in beer) ethos of the World Wide Web, textbook publishers compete against a much more insidious foe: their own products.
If you went to college within the last few decades, you probably bought many of your textbooks used. Maybe you found it convenient to own a book where the key passages were already underlined and highlighted, but it’s more likely you simply wanted to save some money: generally about 40% of the cost of a new copy of the same book, if my addled memory serves me. No one can blame a student for wanting to save money, but buying used textbooks turns out to be a classic instance of a decision that benefits the individual at the expense of the collective — and ultimately, the individual herself.
Used books are bought and sold by used book dealers, not the original publisher of the textbook. When a textbook is released in a new edition, the publisher collects revenue for every copy sold of that edition. Then the academic term ends, and the used book dealer appears behind those long folding tables in the campus bookstore, buying back every usable copy of that new edition. Say for the sake of argument that the used book seller buys back 50% of the publishing run. (Note that I have no idea what the actual average is, or if there even is a reliable average.) The next semester, for every new copy the bookstore orders of that title, there is a cheaper used copy sitting next to it on the shelf. Students buy the used books until they run out, then buy the new ones. The publisher’s revenue from the book is half of what it was in the previous term, and the edition is not even a year old. Then that semester ends, the used book people come back, and the cycle repeats.
Run this equation a few times and you see the dilemma the publisher is in: its new product is quickly elbowed out of the market by identical but cheaper product from which it collects no revenue. (Just to be clear about this, because a lot of people don’t understand or believe it: used book companies have no relation to book publishers and pay them no royalties on any of the books they buy and sell.) That’s how it was when I was in school. Today, with the power of the internet, the publisher’s situation is much worse. Students can now visit eBay or Half.com if the campus bookstore is out of used editions. Some enterprising students have even ordered international copies of the same edition — priced considerably lower to compete in less affluent markets — and gone into business selling textbooks to their fellow students at a fraction of the domestic price.
(We’ll get back to the iPad in a minute, I promise.)
Publishers have tried to combat this trend in two ways. The first is to revise textbooks more often, in order to render the used editions obsolete. But few academic subjects warrant such frequent revisions, and students and faculty alike balk at this strategy: students for the obvious financial reasons, and teachers because a new edition forces them to rewrite their tests and lectures. The other approach has been to load new textbooks with goodies that used books don’t have: PowerPoint notes, study guides, practice tests, even multimedia and interactive software. The trouble with this is that not every product appeals to every student, meaning a whole kitchen sink of add-ons has to be thrown in to appeal to as many students as possible, thus raising the cost of the book (further, as publishers have already had to raise prices to make up for the revenue they’ve lost) and forcing even more students into the arms of the used book seller.
How to get out of this impasse?
Textbook publishers need a form of digital textbook that can be registered to a single owner and that expires a set time after being activated. This not only solves the problem of used books, it saves them the massive cost of printing, warehousing and shipping textbooks. It allows them to recruit talented authors with the promise of greater royalties — and perhaps most importantly, offers the real prospect of reduced textbook prices, as efficiencies can be passed on as savings to the student. Everybody wins.
The problem holding back this happy state of affairs is the same one facing newspapers and magazines: reading a digital text on a laptop is simply not as convenient, effective or rewarding as reading and holding a physical textbook. As a piece of technology, the book is actually quite difficult to improve on: it’s compact (reasonably), requires no power to use and can last forever if treated with care. You can write in it, shove notes in it and use it to fight off a CIA assassin. Students need a digital textbook that benefits them, not just the publishers, and no one has yet succeeded in making one.
Enter the iPad. From the demo given of an interactive iPad edition of the New York Times, it is easy to see the device’s potential for digital textbooks. All the multimedia, online access and bookmarking features a student could ask for, along with the portability of a slate of plastic and glass that weighs a pound and a half. One could argue that few people actually need to carry their entire reading libraries around with them all the time, but the few who do are college students. In addition, students could carry their notes and their term papers in progress, as well as have constant access to their professor’s online course management site, all from the same slim device.
The Kindle cannot do this. For one thing, its screen, however good it may be for reading, is not equipped to reproduce the pedagogy of a modern textbook, which increasingly has come to resemble the USA Today weather map (imagine that on an iPad) in its colors and 3-D effects. For another, the Kindle is too specialized. You can bookmark your texts, annotate them and look up words, but you can’t instant message your classmate, navigate a complex website or type notes during a lecture. Textbooks are only the beginning of the classroom experience, and Kindle is unequipped to recognize that reality. (I will also say that, in the little time I’ve handled it, I have found the Kindle quite underwhelming: slow, lacking in customizability and embodying a distinctly last-century aesthetic. One further benefit to adopting the iPad on campus: students will want to own them.)
The benefits for textbook publishers then become obvious: here is a device that might finally usher in the digital textbook as a viable product. The benefits for Apple are less crucial, but still not to be taken lightly. For one thing, it will deal a crippling nut-shot to Amazon’s foray into the hardware business and position Apple as the top-selling e-book manufacturer — within, I would guess, a very short time, say 12 months after release. (Amazon still refuses to say how many Kindles they’ve sold. Bet that Apple will not be so reticent.) For another, universities represent a very nice market for hardware sales — especially hardware that’s mandated by the school’s curriculum. Whether students end up bringing the devices to campus themselves or leasing them from the university, Apple could end up putting a lot of iPads into a lot of hands. And beyond that is the prestige: Apple is proud of its heritage as a favorite of educators, and building the first great digital learning device of the 21st century is not something Steve Jobs takes lightly. (Note his strained and slightly bizarre affirmation that Apple’s goal is to combine technology and liberal arts, the latter a term you rarely hear outside of a college curriculum.)
So while Jobs’ launch of the iPad was comprehensive, it ignored one of the device’s biggest potential uses. I expect this will be corrected. At some point this year — I have no inside information, and am simply surmising — Apple will formally launch the iPad as a digital textbook reader, announcing its partnerships with loudmouth Terry McGraw and other educational publishers, demoing all the incredible things that an iPad textbook will be able to do, and most likely touting an agreement with one or more major universities to conduct pilot studies of iPads on campus. One lucky class at Stanford or Berkley or somewhere will be issued a new iPad along with their student ID. And what may turn out to be the iPad’s most significant role will truly begin. Small wonder Terry McGraw couldn’t wait to talk about it.
Posted in Articles, Essays
Tagged Amazon, Apple, books, college, education, iPad, Kindle, publishing, reading, Steve Jobs, textbook, used books
4 Comments
