In our advocacy of digital media we often say that one of the great benefits of digital text is that the book becomes a living object, that readers can respond with comments, authors can interact with readers, and togetehr the resulting dialogue will be richer than the stale pages of a printed book. That’s a lovely concept.

But what if the author doesn’t want to engage in a dialogue with readers? Of course, no one will force anyone to do so. I suspect that when a lot of authors finish writing a book, then they’re finish with that topic. They want to move on to something else, research another subject. They may be sick to death and be repulsed by having to moderate comments.

Yet, we all know that most scholarly books are never read. I’m a librarian and I’ve seen those circulation statistics. So, why would the number of readers of networked books be any higher? These online books are now novelties and attract a lot of attention but that always will not be the case. Sure, there will be some Internet trolls but when thousands of networked books appear every year, then the readership for each work is likely to be low and manageable. Authors may be thrilled to learn that there is actually someone reading their writings.

Still, I suspect that some authors will not want to take part in a dialogue about their networked book. In that case, can it still be called a networked book if the author doesn’t participate in the discussion? How do readers respond to a networked book if the author is not responsive? Do the readers then view that specific networked book with less validity? Or, does the networked book then take on a life of its own, fostering a new community that is interlinked with other networked books and researchers exploring the same field of study? What happens to a networked book when the author dies?

Undoubtedly, as with printed books, the dialogue resulting from the networked book will go on long after the author’s involvement, either from lack of interest or physical incapacity.

I also suspect that there will be some authors who will get so carried away with the ongoing discourse surrounding a networked book that they never get around to completing another. (Will some futuristic tenure committee set quotas to prod junior faculty into producing a greater number of networked books?) Or, can one’s lifetime of research be embodied in an ever changing, evolving networked structure that has no analogy to books?

For some authors there may be a point where a particular networked book becomes so popular that an author may have to step away from the dialogue in order to pursue other research. In those cases, will the networked book site be closed to comments and considered complete or will the site continue growing without the participation of the original author? Perhaps there are opportunities for graduate assistants to take over the moderation of the dialogue.

I recently starting reading GAM3R 7H30RY, the innovative networked book by McKenzie Wark with the support of the Institute for the Future of the Book. I’ve not gotten far enough into the work to form a  conclusion about it but here are my initial observations.

I like the way that the book is structured as a Web site that allows dialogue and feedback at the paragraph level. You can view a paragraph of text and then see the comments in a sidebar - neat! There’s also a discussion forum. I’m also impressed that the site is built as a customized theme on top of Wordpress. While the graphic design is rather bland and the color scheme seems more appropriate for a pre-teen girl, it’s still a good effort.

I really like the way that you can subscribe to a feed and receive five paragraphs a day. It’s great how the feed starts from the beginning on the day that you subscribe rather than forcing you to go back and catch up with everything. Of course, it’s not a blog but it makes very good use of the way that I read blogs (i.e., bloglines). I would like to see this approach adopted in other projects that have a lot of text. Yeah, I always mean to go back and read those fifty page PDF documents that I download but, somehow, never get around to it. So, getting a reasonably sized daily delivery into my news reader means that I’m more likely to read (or, at least, skim) most of GAM3R 7H30RY.

The writing style of GAM3R 7H30RY seems a little hyper, as if I’m reading some Wired magazine article but maybe it will get better. One thing about presenting books on the Web in this manner is that you don’t have the usual conventions of a book’s print layout that informs you about how you should think about this book: is it a serious academic study or is it a breezy opinion piece.

My biggest problem, and maybe it’s only my problem, is that I still don’t know how to read this type of online book. With a printed book of non-fiction I take the classic approach to reading the blurb on the dust jacket, then the table of contents, then skimming the book from cover to cover to get a full for the text, perhaps dropping in to read a few sections closely. Then I go back to the beginning and read the intro or first chapter.

I’m sure that someone can argue that you can take the same approach here. I tried that with GAM3R 7H30RY and it just didn’t quite work for me. To their credit there is a section labeled “How to read this book” on the GAM3R 7H30RY site but I didn’t locate that until I’ve used the site a few times. Of course, users hardly ever look at those type of pages anyway.

Of course, we’re at the very early stages of placing such books online (and I do consider them books even if they’re not in print). We’re in the very early stages of defining the conventional structures for networked books. Yet, one of the benefits and possible drawbacks of networked books is that there may never be a universally defined structure as there is in print. But, I suspect one will develop even if it’s not the best structure. Just as accepted structures, however flawed, developed early on for Web sites, the same will happen for networked books. For that reason, it’s very important that there be a lot of discussion about these issues in the early stages.

Computer games often have a high learning curve (at least for those of us who are not 12). When I play a new game I often have to use the tutorial to get started. Again, though, I notice that isn’t true when I observe a 12 year old use the same game for the first time. But with games, learning to master the interface, the controls, movement and the weaponry are an essential part of playing computer games. I’m not sure that we want to require readers to learn navigational structures for each new networked book. So, it would be nice to see what features and functionality works and what doesn’t. At the same time, I would hate to see people locked into a box. I suspect that in the future there might be a career for networked book designers just as there is for print book designers.

I know that the Institute for the Future of the Book is working on something called Sophie (PDF) that appears to have some promise in developing networked books. I’m looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

One of the problems in reading GAM3R 7H30RY is the ease of commenting and providing feedback. What is that a problem? Isn’t that one of the great features of networked books?

I find myself wanting to respond, to comment, too quickly because of the way that GAM3R 7H30RY is structured and presented. As I read I realize that I may be forming conclusions too quickly, that I’m only reading a section of a chapter, that I may not have grasped the author’s full argument. In these bit-size chunks, it’s difficult to retain the context of the author’s argument. I’m concerned that if I make a comment on paragraph 003 that at paragraph 005 I will have realized the foolishness of my thoughts as the author expanded his explanation. But, I suspect some readers will jump in and start blasting away comments as they go.

Indeed, in the comments to the first chapter of GAM3R 7H30RY, this is the case when someone makes a comment and GAM3R 7H30RY author McKenzie Wark responds, “You might want to read on a bit more and then decide if i’m missing the point or not.” In another comment, just two paragraphs latter, Wark replies to another reader, “You’re only a bout 900 words in to the book. The ’stereotype’ as you put it is about to get flipped around.” So, perhaps people should refrain from comments before reading the entire book. But, that seems to bring up a serious problem with presenting books in this fashion. Or, at least, with the ways that one reads such a book. Or, the way one writes such a book. At this point, I find myself wanting to read the entire text before commenting on specific points at the GAM3R 7H30RY site.

I look forward to continue reading GAM3R 7H30RY and applaud McKenzie Wark and the Institute for the Future of the Book in their efforts. My criticism (recognizing that it is easier to criticize than create) is simply based on trying to think about what does and doesn’t work in this environment. We’re still at the very early stages of learning to read and write in this medium.

In The End of Cyberspace Alex Soojung-Kim Pang raises questions about criticisms of computerized pedagogy: “many of these criticisms rest on an assumption that dealing with computers automatically divorces you from the real world; that the seductive universe of zeroes and ones pulls your attention away from the messy world of atoms and people; and that the character of students’ interactions with computers are very different from those with paper, ink, compass, or modeling clay.”

In my previous post I mentioned my time away from massive doses of technology this year. During that time I did sense that my own thinking was deeper and clearer than when I’m spending hours & hours a day online.

I suspect that it’s because I was more focused on thoughts and ideas rather than absorbing new information or learning the mechanics of a technological tool. I also was only focused on only one or two topics rather than the onslaught of ideas that come to me online. Indeed, now is such an example. I should be working on the draft of my novel rather than addressing this topic, but here I am.

I still find that my best, most creative writing is done with pen and paper. The longer process forces me to think about each paragraph, each sentence, each word. When writing with a word processor I really have to force myself to slow down. It’s too easy too ramble. Obviously, my blogs are always written not by pen otherwise my postings would be much more concise. Also, with word processors it’s too distracting knowing that Firefox is so nearby.

I think that indepth learning can take place with technology and it’s certainly an almost necessary way to engage today’s students. Yet, being away from technology forces us to slow down. I’m not sure exactly what but there does seem to be something positive about being offline when it comes to learning and thinking. (Can’t believe I’m saying this since I, of all people, am no critic of teaching & learning with technology). Or, perhaps, we just haven’t yet developed critical forms of introspective intellectual engagement in the digital environment. (Not sure what that last sentence means, if anything; I need to go offline with pen and paper to think about that more fully).