@heywritemybookforme
April 22, 2009 at 3:41 pm by Russ Marshalek in Books, Pop CultureForget the Kindle vs. paper books debate — apparently the days of actually “writing” a “book” are slowly coming to an end. You know, craft, art, substance(s), the actual minutia that all go into making a book a piece of work — it’s all becoming as outdated as banks crash, attention spans diminish, and robots begin serving us dinner in capsule form (OK, that last one won’t happen ’til 2011). In this new cultural landscape, we will need leaders, like the Jonas Brothers, to rise up and, with a firm hand, guide us to new levels of social media interactivity. Fortunately David Pogue, New York Times columnist and author of many books that teach your grandmother how to check e-mail on her eMac, is here to save us via his forthcoming The World According To Twitter.
From the blog of Pogue (David Pogue, not the Pogues the band, because you know very well that I’d heap high praise on anything penned by Shane MacGowan):
It all started with a live demo of Twitter. During a talk, I was trying to demonstrate the real-time nature of Twitter. On stage, I typed: “Anyone got a pun that can fit in 140 characters?” Your responses started flowing within 10 seconds….
Wait, wait, dear Culture Surfer reader, don’t check out yet, it gets better (in the way that “better” means “worse”):
Next, I posted a picture of a squirrel in my yard, and asked for captions. You turned out to be the wittiest caption writers ever!
(Oh, sorry, I added that exclamation point up there. It just needed it, didn’t it?)
That was it. I knew my mission in life: to compile and edit a whole book of (Twitter) responses, written by my 200,000 followers.
(As you can see, that is not actually the real cover of David Pogue’s book that you wrote for him)
In today’s collapsing publishing landscape this book screams both timely and vital. I’ll be greatly looking forward to Pogue’s well-thought-out treatise on Friendster soon!
No, really, all snark aside, this sort of attempt at an of-the-minute cash-grab really irks me. While publishers, authors and other various incidental folk in the book business are actually working, diligently and full of heart, to discover what it’s going to take to turn the sinking ship of books around, Pogue’s trying to ramp up excitement for 200 pages of @SomeGuy tweeting “hey I really like dogs.”
And speaking of @someguy — if you, lucky you, end up being selected to be a part of Pogue’s scam project, you certainly get compensated, right?
Of course you do. Per Pogue himself, he’ll send you “a free copy of the book, inscribed to you personally.”
Oh, wow, lucky day!
Meanwhile, he’ll certainly be charging at least $19.95 for the book.
Also, while Twitter may be the super-hot “this is going to save the world as soon as we figure out how to use it” topic on the tip of many a CEO’s tongue … well, that’s it exactly. In a matter of time, Twitter will be to to some new social network what Myspace now is to Facebook. Trying to document any social network, in any way, via printed text, reminds me of when I, as an undergrad, was paid far too much money to copy write for what was aiming to be the “first printed guide to web sites” — since, you know, websites tend to stay around forever.
I don’t think it ever actually took off the ground. Imagine that.
Anyway, it saddens me when I can genuinely say that I prefer Oprah and Ashton Kutcher’s manipulation of Twitter for their own gains over David Pogue’s “you guys can do my job for me and I’ll insert the hot social network of the moment into it to make it timely” approach, but I do. I mean, Oprah’s like everyone’s crazy aunt, so she’s forgiven to being late to the party.
Also, at least Oprah isn’t asking her Twitter followers to write a book for her.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Yes, but what are the chances that this will make it into Oprah’s bookclub, do you think?
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I would buy it! I would buy ten of it! And read them all if Oprah says so!
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
WOWZERS what a nastython! Can’t remember anyone laying on the snark so thickly about anything.
So, let’s see: my book project is an “of-the-minute cash-grab,” meaning that I’m going to get rich off the book. So you’re predicting that it will sell well!
And yet…”Pogue’s trying to ramp up excitement for 200 pages of @SomeGuy tweeting “hey I really like dogs.” Oh wait… so you’re predicting that the book will tank!
Can’t have it both ways, dude.
“Per Pogue himself, he’ll send you ‘a free copy of the book, inscribed to you personally.’
Oh, wow, lucky day!”
We have thought about the royalties question. Will it really be worth dividing $35 every six months among 2000 people? And then sending out 1099 tax forms every year? Frankly, I think it’s likely that the book’s contributors will come out ahead with a free book.
But in any case, they’re getting a free $20 book in exchange for writing ONE SENTENCE. You think that’s a lousy deal? Great! You don’t have to participate.
But don’t spit on the thousands who are excited about the prospect (and yes, there are thousands so far).
Finally, since your lead-in suggests that your real concern is that “the days of actually “writing” a “book” are slowly coming to an end,” don’t fret. I researched, wrote, illustrated, and published 3200 pages of books last year alone… all by myself.
–David Pogue
–Pogue
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
OH SNAP
Somebody grab the aloe.. because you just got BURNED.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I think Debbie Downer needs a hug. (Perhaps you’re just jealous?)
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Get over it. Nothing to see here, move along.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
What’s wrong with capturing the moment? What about the lolcats book? Settle down, fussy Russy!
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Yeah! any book no “written” by the author is crap!
Oh wait… no. There are thousands of interesting books that fit this mold. Take “Post Secret” for example.
There is nothing wrong with this endeavor, and may actually prove to be very entertaining and/or interesting.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I reckon Twitter will one day give up the ghost to a superior medium, as any piece of technology eventually becomes obsolete, but give credit to people like David Pogue for helping the masses make the best use of the technology that is here now, and even entertain them with it. Actually if “Dave Barry in Cyberspace” is any indication a book of this sort could be a somewhat timeless commentary on how people interact with computers.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Jealous much?
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
you tell him Dave
)
David Pogue is a great writer. I have been getting his email newsletter from nytimes for years before I heard of twitter..
car4dave on twitter..
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
He is having us write a book for him and you are having him advertizing your troll rant. Isn’t live ironic?
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I think that this will be a great project. I actually wrote David to tell him that I was really excited about his upcoming project and thought it would be a very interesting read.
Overall, I think it’ll at the very least be an interesting social commentary on Twitter and the people who use it. And frankly, if we (Pogue’s followers) don’t mind being ‘used’ by David, what does it matter anyhow?
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’d rather buy a compilation of @LILJIZZEL tweets.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Russ –
this is right on the money and perfectly summarizes my reaction to the book when I saw it and understood what exactly Pogue had – or actually hadn’t – done.
It makes you feel creepy. This ‘book’ hits all the most negative notes, from its concept to its execution, to the fact that someone in publishing actually thought it was something real.
Oh, well. Bring on the robots with the capsule meals, i guess.
John
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Also, your daily tweeting is essentially already book-length, @russmarshalek!
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I own and value David Pogue books on magic and various Mac-related topics. The problem here is not the method but the un-funny content. The supposed “parental advice” was completely tired, trite, and worst of all fake. The squirrel photo captioning? Painful (my own entry included). And of course…puns. Oy.
Further, much of the entertainment value of what wasn’t just awful depended on the novelty and immediacy of the powered-by-Twitter responses. This value is far removed from whatever published book results.
P.S. 1099s are optional when the annual amount <$600.00. Consult your tax professional!
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
A lot of tweets are awful, yes. Then again, most of what’s spoken on a daily basis is worthless, including most of the comment section, including most of what I say. That’s why there are editors, right? Isn’t that what Pogue is doing? Compiling and editing? He’s not claiming to be the next Faulkner, Pynchon, Rowling or Snicket.
For those naysayers, including Russ, I hope you don’t get splinters from too vigorously brandishing that rake at the kids on your lawn.
(And for those of you without appreciation for puns… you’re all dead to me.)
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
David Pogue is fantastic. Hence: fuck your shitty teen blog.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I for one am happy to contribute ideas to Pogue’s project without worrying about compensation. David has given me hours of free entertainment in his podcasts and parodies. I’m happy to return the favor in my small way.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Seems to me Pogue’s idea is fairly innovative – latching onto an international phenomenon, creating a unique publication, and allowing thousands of people to participate in the creative process. If you’re having trouble with the idea of tapping into social media as a way to reinvent old ways of doing things, I gotta tell ya – welcome to the 21st century!
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I enjoy Pogues writing and goofy comedy very much. His books are of incredible value to me, especially iMovie HD which was instrumental in getting videos made for my video blog. Mock my videos but just don’t mock my sailing skills or you’re overboard.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Unlike many other robots who are writing in here, I’d like to congratulate this “blogger” for writing something that got the attention of Mr. David Pogue.
I mean honestly, doesn’t that show the value of Twitter — that a lonely blogger had the balls to disagree with a reporter (and BLOGGER) of the New York Times — and not only that — get his full attention? Enough to have him tweet to his cult of 200K followers to complain about ‘our book’ project. HA!
That’s the genius of social media. So what? This “dude” (as Pogue refers to him as) doesn’t agree with his book idea — who gives a flying fuck. I am not one of the consumers who’d buy this book — would anyone? I mean actually buy it AND actually read it rather than resting martini glasses on top of it?
Why is publishing not weighing in? Be interested to hear further thoughts from the community who this actually impacts.
So a blogger vented – right or wrong – who cares. If the book is a success or not – who cares. Point being, we’re all entitled to vent – to state an opinion in today’s world.
In addition, I HATE the whole “us” “our book” bs comments. I am not “with” anyone or “for” anything. I tweet. I email. I read the Times — I have zero loyalty to anyone, but myself – which is why at the end of the day I respect this blog entry that this blogger wrote….He disagrees and rather than just sit there hating, he used a similar medium to tell Pogue he thought he was wrong.
Bravo. Pogue is pissed – people know about this blog – I hope Gawker is taking note.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
When an author shares his audience WITH his audience that’s Web 2.0.
Pogue clearly states the book is BY his followers and not by him.
I find it ironic that half your article quotes HIM.
Do authors think they’re better than their readers? Better writers, better thinkers? Because that’s what strikes me REALLY irks YOU. That somehow, some nearly anon noob might get more airtime/booktime/blogspace than you.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
It’s not the cash grabbing that irks me. It’s the cash grabbing without any recompense to the people who provided the material. Scott Adams has done it for years. Most of his Dilbert cartoons come from ideas submitted by his readers, and always have. Yes, he has the skill to make the suggestions into a cartoon. Yes, he has the juice to get the cartoons published. But when will those with the skill and the juice recognize (and pay for?) the contributions of others?
Oh, and I have an idea for the book publishing industry: Stop trying to publish a blockbuster every time. If you concentrated more on publishing quality work than on whose work can sell the most books, you might surprise yourself by selling more books.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 am
One more thing: When you decide on what might be a good quality book, don’t rely just on the elite effete of the Ivy League.
I stopped reading most fiction years ago, when it became just plain silly.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Russ, congrats. You made Gawker this a.m. (http://gawker.com/5223858/david-pogue-latest-victim-of-twitter+book-rage) and managed to bring attention to David’s book in one quick click.
David – hire this publicist. In one blog, Russ managed to get you more publicity than any of your updates. In one post that disagreed with you, he brought you more attention that any of your twitter wits.
Why are people freaking about this? He wrote a (rather humorous) snary ass blog questioning a book that seems pretty boring to me.
If this was a snark-ass attack on anyone else no one would give a shit, but because he questioned David F’ng Pogue of the NYT, everyone is gasping over this? Please. Get. Over. It.
A tech columnist vs. a publicist. Oh my! NYC you disappoint me in how BORING you’re becoming.
*yawn*
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
David:
Obviously if a site as esteemed as Gawker weighs in in your favor, I must be in the wrong, eh?
I’ve had the chance to read your response, and those from your obviously very adoring base of followers. While I question the constant berating of myself as a “blogger” (particularly, as I think was stated above, given the year that we’re in), as well as the “us” vs “you” mindset that some seem to be taking on this situation (it feels, eerily, like a mob sort of mentality…pitchforks, flaming torches and all that, meant to take on the monster who has pointed out that the emperor may, just possibly, not only have no clothes but be asking his taxed townspeople to sew them for him), I have to say that I’m glad the opportunity for a dialogue about this exists. And it’s quite obvious I’d be bold-faced lying if I said I anticipated this getting attention anywhere near this level.
That said? I recognize that my essential arguments didn’t cohere as best they could (I’m not a writer for the New York Times-merely a blogger and a twitterer, recall), and basically my entire post here could be construed as a “what you’re doing is DUMB!” commentary.
And, dumb or not, you obviously have people talking, and as such the idea of a book farmed out to your fanatic twitter followers, “written” by you, is an idea that people have a response to, one way or the other. That, in and of itself, says something. Obviously, I wouldn’t have a dissenting, dirty, blogger opinion if you weren’t on to something, be it good or bad. And for that you should be applauded.
Honestly, when I wrote the above piece, I’d assumed you’d be self-publishing the book, at which point a lot of the questions I have about fair credit and compensation would really be moot point-you, regardless how more well off than many of the 200k followers participating in your “project” (it’s NOT an experiment-there is work that is being done, by you or by them, and we know the end result-a published book selling for cash…more on this later) you may be, it would still be *your* money fronting this.
An actual publisher stepping in? This does allow me to raise a few issues.
To begin with, do I think the book, itself, will sell? Fly off the shelves? Be a best-seller? God, in today’s publishing climate I’ve no idea. I read literary fiction and cheesy young adult novels about vampires. I don’t presume to tell you anything, as a multi-published author, that you don’t already know, but the fact that you’re gunning both non-fiction and on a topic that’s in minute 12 of its 15 in pop culture relevance (see: Oprah) put closer to a bestseller than, say, a first-time fiction author. Certainly, too, your celebrity status helps.
Regardless, though, how quickly will you begin to see profit from this project? I can’t imagine any publisher in this landscape would throw a ludicrous advance-or an advance at all-your way. That said, how much will you bring in-from speaking engagements, etc-once this book hits? And how much of that will the participants in it see? Furthermore, you’ll, of course, list yourself as “editor” and list every single twitter submitter as “author”, right? To preserve the integrity of what the project really is?
The idea of this project, as I stated above in my blog (that’s what it was-not a “piece”, not an “article”, but a “blog”, and if that’s a dirty word to some, well, it’s 2009 and we’re talking about a book composed entirely of tweets), seems to me to be a manipulation of community-the community that you maintain and have a responsibility to amongst your 200k followers on twitter, as well as the entire twitter spectrum itself. I think the entire thing would have left a much better taste in my mouth if not for the “anyone whose tweet is used will receive a signed, PERSONALIZED book” addendum.
Again: you are having your work done for you. You’re a journalist and a writer-a respected one at that, as the above commenters are quick to inform me-so write a book on twitter and the effects of it. Contextualize it with where social media is right now. Crowdsource it if you must, but compensate those involved properly. Don’t foster and nurture a community, only to unleash a “hey, i am going to repurpose your ideas verbatim” edict-that rings false, and it rings hollow.
It seems like there’s got to be a better way to document a phenomena that is, for all intense and purposes, in its mid-life stages, while finding what that next important social tool is going to be. Wouldn’t that be a better place to start, rather than writing the Twitter equivalent of I Can Has Cheezburger?
Granted, from what I know, I Can Has Cheezburger made serious $$.
But then, I’m not the expert on the tech world. Web 2.0. Whatever buzzphrase is the most relevant in your industry right now. All I know is what I see happening with this book, which amounts to a sort of manipulation, in my opinion. And the fact that there’s a part of me-no small part, in fact-angry at publishing for wasting its time on this when it, on the whole, can’t even get its collective mind around twitter to begin with. But that’s not your issue, David, is it?
I hope this doesn’t serve to end the conversation, but rather to continue it. I’d like to see where you’re coming from, and I’d like to have illuminated any vital points that I might be missing in my view of this project, how your followers view it, and what you hope to accomplish-for twitter, for publishing, for yourself and, most importantly, for those followers whose work you will be repurposing entirely and financially gaining from.
Furthermore, I think we may have hit on something that brings to light a much broader issue-the various uses of twitter and the views on them in various industries and from various vantage points. I’m organizing a panel of people involved in books in various capacities for the Twitter-discussing 140 Character Conference (in June,NYC) and, given the past 24 hours topics of conversation here, I’d love to discuss these things with you in person. Regardless of whether we come out of our online discussion seeing eye-to-eye 100% or at a stalemate, I feel we’ve much to discuss and would love to do so with you in person.
I’m @russmarshalek on twitter and look forward to talking with you, and any of your followers.
-Russ
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
I think Anna and Sassy hit on the main point of interest here. It’s that the dialogue that social media enables is what’s exciting about it. Bravo to Russ for calling it the way he sees it – and also to David for jumping in.
Sadly, as evinced by the number of defensive and negative posters, social media also tends to create some pretty unexciting followers. To you: start thinking and not just reacting.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Russ,
Your response is amazing. I hope Mr. Pogue participates @ the 140 Conference.
I mean – The New York Times could lower itself enough to attend, right? He would be surrounded by *gasp* bloggers who *might* know more about Twitter than him and some might even have the balls to POST ABOUT IT later.
Recently, Jay Rosen accused Pogue of bellyaching about Twitter and was “now writing a book.” He tweeted that too to tell his “community” (not me, or you or us), but “his” followers about it.
Get him a digital tissue and stfu.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 am
I’m not one of David Pogue’s followers, so presumably I won’t be in his book. But I would be thrilled to be in any twitter book, as long as my twitter name (@ericabrooke) was mentioned. It might get me more followers, which in turn might increase my blog traffic. To me, an extra 5-10 people becoming readers of World Wide Whiskers is worth far more than whatever royalties would be split 200 ways.
I think as long as people have the choice of whether or not to be in the book, there’s nothing “wrong” with the book itself. I wouldn’t be interested in reading it, nor do I think it says anything great about publishing. But that’s another story.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
I couldn’t even begin to parse Mr. Marshalek’s reply. WAYYYY more than 140 chars.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
snore