Sherman Alexie

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Sherman Alexie on the Colbert Report

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009
The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sherman Alexie
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

I’ve been interested in Alexie’s argument against e-readers for some time now, particularly his classification of them as elitist, which it seems to me pretty hard to disagree with. But it looks like he’s backing off of that. The arguments he runs through are (1) privacy, (2) the ease of piracy, (3) the cultural move away from artistic ownership, (4) that it’s somehow nobler to go bookstore to bookstore hawking your wares — though I fail to see how e-readers have done anything to diminish local book coverage — and , (5), that local bookstores will suffer.

The only one of those arguments that I have any interest in is the last one. And I find it even more interesting that Alexie never once mentions what was, only a few months ago, the crux of his argument against the Kindle: that they’re elitist. Given the sort of wild casting about for some reason to dislike the things evidenced on the show, it’s hard for me not to believe that he still thinks they’re elitist, but just isn’t very fond of the reaction he elicited when he called them so. Which is kind of a shame.

That said, the show has one of the funniest moments I’ve ever seen, coming when Sherman Alexie refers to himself as an Indian and Stephen Colbert corrects him, informing Alexie that they prefer to be called Native Americans.

Full disclosure: thanks to the wonder of Walmart, I now have a cheap Blackberry on which I’m reading Henry James in every stupid line and stupid meeting I happen to find myself. (Not to mention the occasional stupid conversation.) So much for consistency.

Mark Sarvas on the Kindle

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Novelist and blogger Mark Sarvas has come to the defense of the Kindle, taking aim at “stupid” writers — meaning Sherman Alexie (here for my take) — who carp about the Kindle.

His reasoning pretty much makes the point Alexie was going for.

I think we can all agree that hooking young people on literature is a considerably more laudable goal, and so it seems absurdly self-destructive for any author to cut himself off from a generation that doesn’t share our romanticism about paper, a generation that is entirely content receiving information electronically . . .  if I had a teenager whom I wanted to read more, I would buy that teenager a Kindle or a Sony Reader or any other suitable e-book and offer a generous monthly book allowance that the kid could use to purchase whatever caught her fancy.

Right. And in the world of people like Mark Sarvas — which I’m sure is a very comfy world — plunking down a few hundred bucks for an e-book reader and providing a  “generous monthly book allowance” shouldn’t be any kind of problem at all.  

But, for the rest of us, who would like to raise readers also, and don’t have “generous” amounts of money kicking around, we’re kind of fucked, right Mr. Sarvas? We’re gonna have to rely on the library, something which doesn’t even occur to you at all.

Again, I’m not anti-Kindle. I could really care less about it. But the fact that its defenders don’t even consider the possibility that there are readers out there who aren’t sitting on piles of disposable cash pretty much makes Alexie’s point: it is elitist.

Thoughts on Sherman Alexie and the Kindle

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

So, I’ve been enjoying the hell out of the mock furor over Sherman Alexie’s anti-Kindle comments and interview of a couple days ago, mainly because everybody’s so bent out of shape (check the comments). I’ve got no bones to pick with the Kindle, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my reading experience, nor that of anyone I know, and I don’t foresee a time when that’s gonna change. 

I consume somewhere between 75-100 books a year. Some of those are audio books I borrow from the library and put on a $20 Wal Mart .mp3 player that I listen to in the car and on walks, but most are of the paper variety. Almost all of those are also borrowed from the library. Those that aren’t borrowed are either ordered online for a buck or two, purchased from a used bookstore, or passed along to me by friends. Occasionally, I’ll read a free ebook if it’s impossible to find a hard copy, but only if I have to.

Most of the non-fiction I read is in the interest of whatever nonsense obsession I’m currently on. It usually necessitates me tracking down obscure books that I would never pay more than a dollar or two for. With fiction, I keep a running list of shit that I want to check out and there are always free or cheap copies of something on that list out there — the stuff that isn’t, I can wait for, with rare exceptions. I’ve got nothing against new hardcover books, I just can’t afford them — at least not in the quantity at which I consume books. Also, I’m usually reading three to four books at any one time, and often cross-referencing between them. In other words, nothing I read, absolutely nothing, would a Kindle be able to provide that would be even remotely worth the cost.

Then there’s the physical quality of printed books, which I would never give up. And, again, I don’t mean the aesthetics. I mean the sturdiness and the readiness. I’m hard on books. I throw ‘em in the back seat of my car, litter ‘em with post-it notes, set coffee cups on ‘em, toss across rooms, stuff ‘em in bookbags and pockets so I can always have one handy, and sling ‘em around bars, hiking trails, firing ranges, city busses, and etc. I have two small children, a full time job, and a writing hobby which eats up almost all my set free time, so most of my reading’s done on the fly: at lunch at work, while the kids are watching a show or playing in the bath or at a park, in post office lines, during insomnia attacks in the middle of the night, and the like. There’s no way in hell I’m gonna fiddle with buttons, worry about batteries, or deal with glitches and crashes. If someone were to give me a Kindle for free, I wouldn’t use it except at home on the couch or for a little light reading before bed — the kind of shit I almost never do. Otherwise, it’d be useless.

Is it possible that someday Amazon will come out with a totally non-proprietary, absolutely indestructible, instantly ready Kindle, with an infinite battery life, at a price point of almost nothing, on which I could borrow library books, which was universally available so I could easily share with friends, with the option to buy/sell used books, and which was clonable so I could have several books going at one time? Sure, anything’s possible, though I sure as hell doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime. But even if that were the case, it would only make the thing the equivalent of the printed word.  There still would be no advantage to me.

So, is the Kindle elitist as Sherman Alexie called it? Absolutely. It’s a yuppie toy, just like iPods and %99 of the other electronic shit that’s out there. That’s not a moral indictment, it’s just a fact. I will always scrounge up enough money for a computer, ‘cause it’s worth it to me. I will sometimes scrounge up enough money for an electronic toy for my kids, ‘cause I like ‘em. I will never scrounge up hundreds of dollars for something inferior to what I’m already getting for next to nothing. The thing looks like it’d probably be good for people who have money to burn, and read one bestseller at a time, always in a comfy environment during a set reading duration.

In other words, people who have nothing to do with the way I read. Or, for that matter, live. God bless ‘em, I’m glad they enjoy the thing, but I have no interest.

Update: This picture of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos with a Kindle pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it?

jeff-bezos-with-kindle

Kindle elitist

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

Right the fuck on, Sherman Alexie.