Until December 2 I had never heard of this author or this book. This is surprising since this particular novel was a finalist for the National Book Award in 1961. The only reason I became aware of it December 2 is that it was displayed in the bookstore since a movie is coming out based on the book. I happened to pick it up and the prose instantly attracted me.
Yates is an exceptional writer. His phrasings, his images, his thoughts connect with me. I won't recount the story here except to say it's a period piece, taking place in the 50's, and it deals with a couple who struggle to make sense of their lives. The only negative I can mention is that the book is certainly depressing---there is no light at the end of the tunnel---and the conclusion seems obvious long before the end.
I will likely read Yates's other novels and his collected short stories, if I can find it. Yates has connections to Alabama. Freddy says he once lived in Tuscaloosa, and he died at the VA hospital in Birmingham in 1992.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Myth that Republicans are for the Working Class
Republicans have tried to maintain the myth for four decades (starting with Nixon) that they are the champions of the working class against the elitist Democrats. The reality is that Republicans are, and have always been, plutocrats who couldn't care less about the working Americans. The debate over our domestic auto industry amply demonstrates this.
15.12.2008
Bill Kristol Wants His Culture War Back
It’s always a bit disconcerting to find oneself agreeing with a figure as odious as Bill Kristol, but he’s right to call out conservatives for their naked contempt for the American auto industry, especially when compared with their solicitousness for the even more screwed up financial sector. With Kristol, though, you can pretty much assume bad faith (and if you couldn’t, he gives it away by listing, as a feature of the bailout bill he supports, the fact that it would shift “difficult decisions to the Obama administration”). Thus I disagree with Noam that this constitutes some sudden outbreak of reasonableness on his part.
So what’s with his newfound objections to GOP class
warfare? Perhaps it’s because the Republican Party likes to keep its anti-union side a bit more on the down low. After decades in which conservatives pretended to be the champion of average working people, the drama in Detroit is the starkest possible illustration of the GOP’s essentially plutocratic nature. Tom Frank could scarcely have invested a more telling scenario. Here are Republican Senators actively fighting for lower wages and more foreign corporate ownership! Here they are blithely dismissing the need for domestic industry! Here they are grousing about working people getting overly generous retirement benefits and health care! In the face of this reality, the narrative that has sustained the party since Nixon--one in which decadent liberal elites are the real enemies of the hardworking silent majority, with all their sturdy volkish virtues--is exposed in all its naked preposterousness. And that narrative is one that Kristol desperately wants to preserve.
After all, Kristol is the heir to a neoconservative tradition that needed that narrative to look at itself in the mirror. The former socialists who spawned (literally) the current generation of right-wing pundits always liked to feel that they, and not the sneering radical chic intellectuals and activists they reviled, were the champions of the plain people. Kristol tries to keep this idea alive in his column, writing, ridiculously, that most “limousine liberals are embarrassed by their political alliance with the workers who built those limousines.” This slur might have had some validity four decades ago, but it has not a shred today, when Jim Webb is a hero of the Democratic Party. Rich liberals lionize unions, and, like rich conservatives, tend to romanticize the earthy authenticity of the working class. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Tim Robbins has already optioned the story of the workers who sat in at Chicago's Republic Windows & Doors.) Kristol, though, is deeply invested in keeping the categories of the Nixon-era culture war alive. Without them, the pseudo-populist Joe-the-Plumber pandering that constitutes Palinism--Kristol’s preferred cultural mode--is revealed as a con. “Senate Republicans now run the risk of being portrayed as Marie Antoinettes with Southern accents,” he writes. In other words, they risk being portrayed accurately.
15.12.2008
Bill Kristol Wants His Culture War Back
It’s always a bit disconcerting to find oneself agreeing with a figure as odious as Bill Kristol, but he’s right to call out conservatives for their naked contempt for the American auto industry, especially when compared with their solicitousness for the even more screwed up financial sector. With Kristol, though, you can pretty much assume bad faith (and if you couldn’t, he gives it away by listing, as a feature of the bailout bill he supports, the fact that it would shift “difficult decisions to the Obama administration”). Thus I disagree with Noam that this constitutes some sudden outbreak of reasonableness on his part.
So what’s with his newfound objections to GOP class
warfare? Perhaps it’s because the Republican Party likes to keep its anti-union side a bit more on the down low. After decades in which conservatives pretended to be the champion of average working people, the drama in Detroit is the starkest possible illustration of the GOP’s essentially plutocratic nature. Tom Frank could scarcely have invested a more telling scenario. Here are Republican Senators actively fighting for lower wages and more foreign corporate ownership! Here they are blithely dismissing the need for domestic industry! Here they are grousing about working people getting overly generous retirement benefits and health care! In the face of this reality, the narrative that has sustained the party since Nixon--one in which decadent liberal elites are the real enemies of the hardworking silent majority, with all their sturdy volkish virtues--is exposed in all its naked preposterousness. And that narrative is one that Kristol desperately wants to preserve.
After all, Kristol is the heir to a neoconservative tradition that needed that narrative to look at itself in the mirror. The former socialists who spawned (literally) the current generation of right-wing pundits always liked to feel that they, and not the sneering radical chic intellectuals and activists they reviled, were the champions of the plain people. Kristol tries to keep this idea alive in his column, writing, ridiculously, that most “limousine liberals are embarrassed by their political alliance with the workers who built those limousines.” This slur might have had some validity four decades ago, but it has not a shred today, when Jim Webb is a hero of the Democratic Party. Rich liberals lionize unions, and, like rich conservatives, tend to romanticize the earthy authenticity of the working class. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Tim Robbins has already optioned the story of the workers who sat in at Chicago's Republic Windows & Doors.) Kristol, though, is deeply invested in keeping the categories of the Nixon-era culture war alive. Without them, the pseudo-populist Joe-the-Plumber pandering that constitutes Palinism--Kristol’s preferred cultural mode--is revealed as a con. “Senate Republicans now run the risk of being portrayed as Marie Antoinettes with Southern accents,” he writes. In other words, they risk being portrayed accurately.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Better Educated Tend to Vote Democratic
The better educated, the more highly skilled, the more likely a person is to vote Democratic according to this article and the research that it's based on. Conversely, the less educated a person is, the more likely a person is to vote Republican. Since education leads to higher income, affluent people are trending Democratic. However, at the very highest affluency levels, the top 2% who are subject to the estate tax, the more likely a person is to vote Republican. The country is becoming more, not less, Balkanized. We are separating into the progressive (blue) and the regressive (red). I am on the Blue side!
How the Rich Are Different From You and MePlaces that went for Obama are richer and smarter than places that went for McCain.By Bill Bishop and Robert CushingUpdated Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008, at 8:04 PM ET
Last month's election was historic and may even have been transformative, as many commentators said. But in one important respect, it changed nothing. The divide between Republicans and Democrats in America continues to grow.
And it isn't just about politics. The division is also between rich and poor, between those with college educations and those without. On average, Republican communities have lower incomes and less education than Democratic communities. And those differences are growing as people migrate.
Just more than 600 counties (of more than 3,100 nationally) voted Republican more heavily in this year's presidential contest than in 2004. The average per capita yearly income in those counties was about $18,800, according to county income tallies issued each year by the Internal Revenue Service. (Income in this article is determined by the amount of adjusted gross taxable income listed on individual tax returns from 2004-07. Per capita income equals gross income divided by the number of personal exemptions.) By contrast, those living in the 500-plus counties that voted more heavily Democratic this year than in 2004 had average personal incomes of $28,000—nearly 50 percent higher than the communities trending Republican. The most Democratic counties (those where Barack Obama won by more than 20 percentage points) had average per capita incomes of $28,207. Those counties where John McCain won by similar margins had average personal incomes of just $21,308.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'midarticleflex',false,'')
Places divided by income are also separated by education. In landslide Democratic counties, 32.7 percent of the adult population had a bachelor's degree or better. In Republican counties where McCain won by 20 points or better, 20.4 percent of adults had finished college or graduate school.
More than 30 years ago, pollster Everett Carll Ladd Jr. wrote about the "inversion of the New Deal Order." Ladd was one of the first to notice that white workers without a college degree were voting Republican in larger numbers and that educated white workers were turning Democratic.
The debate over whether working-class white voters have abandoned the Democratic Party rages on. (See this recent paper on the "shifting and diverging white working class in U.S. presidential elections.") In the meantime, the results from this year's election show that there is certainly a geographic division in America based on class and status. Democrats won in the richest and most educated communities in the country.
As people migrate, these divisions (political, educational, and economic) among American communities are increasing. Again using IRS records, we tracked the average income of people who moved between counties since the 2004 election. Those who trekked across state lines from 2003-07 and settled in counties that grew more Republican this year had average incomes of $18,300. The people who moved into counties that became more Democratic in 2008 averaged $28,100 in yearly income. So those who moved to blue counties had incomes more than 50 percent higher than those migrating to the reddest of counties.
digg_url = 'http://www.slate.com/id/2206512';
And in the "flip" counties, the contrast is even starker. In all of the United States, there were only 44 counties that voted for John Kerry in 2004 but for John McCain in 2008. The average annual per capita income of the people who moved into these counties between the two elections was $16,500. That's 34 percent less than those who migrated into the 331 counties that went for George Bush in '04 but Obama in '08.
People with fewer money-making skills are moving into counties that are voting increasingly Republican. Those with higher incomes (and more education) are moving into counties that are voting more Democratic. The more lopsided the local political victory, the greater the differences in income and education.
This phenomenon held true in cities and rural communities alike. In those urban centers that voted overwhelmingly for John McCain, 23.6 percent of the adult population had at least a bachelor's degree. In urban counties that voted in a landslide for Obama, 33.3 percent had at least a college degree. In rural counties that voted in a landslide for McCain, 15.2 percent of adults had a college degree or better. In rural Obama landslide counties, it was 19.2 percent.
We don't pretend to understand the full meaning of how this country is dividing. We can see, however, that America is becoming more polarized not only politically but also educationally and economically—and that a country Balkanized by skills and by income has more troubles than one that is simply divided by votes.
How the Rich Are Different From You and MePlaces that went for Obama are richer and smarter than places that went for McCain.By Bill Bishop and Robert CushingUpdated Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008, at 8:04 PM ET
Last month's election was historic and may even have been transformative, as many commentators said. But in one important respect, it changed nothing. The divide between Republicans and Democrats in America continues to grow.
And it isn't just about politics. The division is also between rich and poor, between those with college educations and those without. On average, Republican communities have lower incomes and less education than Democratic communities. And those differences are growing as people migrate.
Just more than 600 counties (of more than 3,100 nationally) voted Republican more heavily in this year's presidential contest than in 2004. The average per capita yearly income in those counties was about $18,800, according to county income tallies issued each year by the Internal Revenue Service. (Income in this article is determined by the amount of adjusted gross taxable income listed on individual tax returns from 2004-07. Per capita income equals gross income divided by the number of personal exemptions.) By contrast, those living in the 500-plus counties that voted more heavily Democratic this year than in 2004 had average personal incomes of $28,000—nearly 50 percent higher than the communities trending Republican. The most Democratic counties (those where Barack Obama won by more than 20 percentage points) had average per capita incomes of $28,207. Those counties where John McCain won by similar margins had average personal incomes of just $21,308.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'midarticleflex',false,'')
Places divided by income are also separated by education. In landslide Democratic counties, 32.7 percent of the adult population had a bachelor's degree or better. In Republican counties where McCain won by 20 points or better, 20.4 percent of adults had finished college or graduate school.
More than 30 years ago, pollster Everett Carll Ladd Jr. wrote about the "inversion of the New Deal Order." Ladd was one of the first to notice that white workers without a college degree were voting Republican in larger numbers and that educated white workers were turning Democratic.
The debate over whether working-class white voters have abandoned the Democratic Party rages on. (See this recent paper on the "shifting and diverging white working class in U.S. presidential elections.") In the meantime, the results from this year's election show that there is certainly a geographic division in America based on class and status. Democrats won in the richest and most educated communities in the country.
As people migrate, these divisions (political, educational, and economic) among American communities are increasing. Again using IRS records, we tracked the average income of people who moved between counties since the 2004 election. Those who trekked across state lines from 2003-07 and settled in counties that grew more Republican this year had average incomes of $18,300. The people who moved into counties that became more Democratic in 2008 averaged $28,100 in yearly income. So those who moved to blue counties had incomes more than 50 percent higher than those migrating to the reddest of counties.
digg_url = 'http://www.slate.com/id/2206512';
And in the "flip" counties, the contrast is even starker. In all of the United States, there were only 44 counties that voted for John Kerry in 2004 but for John McCain in 2008. The average annual per capita income of the people who moved into these counties between the two elections was $16,500. That's 34 percent less than those who migrated into the 331 counties that went for George Bush in '04 but Obama in '08.
People with fewer money-making skills are moving into counties that are voting increasingly Republican. Those with higher incomes (and more education) are moving into counties that are voting more Democratic. The more lopsided the local political victory, the greater the differences in income and education.
This phenomenon held true in cities and rural communities alike. In those urban centers that voted overwhelmingly for John McCain, 23.6 percent of the adult population had at least a bachelor's degree. In urban counties that voted in a landslide for Obama, 33.3 percent had at least a college degree. In rural counties that voted in a landslide for McCain, 15.2 percent of adults had a college degree or better. In rural Obama landslide counties, it was 19.2 percent.
We don't pretend to understand the full meaning of how this country is dividing. We can see, however, that America is becoming more polarized not only politically but also educationally and economically—and that a country Balkanized by skills and by income has more troubles than one that is simply divided by votes.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Indignation by Philip Roth
This was a delight to read.
Marcus Messner aims to be independent, to defy the social codes of respectable conduct, moral supremacy, ethical propriety, dignity, and order, the very values that define the 1950s. The backdrop to his rebellion is the Korean War, the symbol of honor, courage, and service.
He insists on not conforming, but instead following his emotions, not the restrictive cultural dictums espoused by those surrounding him. Ever fearful, he mistrusts everyone, especially his father, his roommates, Dean Caudwell, and Olivia.
Ironically, it is this bullheadedness that causes his tragic fate. As Roth observes, "one's most banal, incidental, even comical choices achieve the most disproportionate result."
I consider Marcus a precursor to the progressivism of the 1960s and its unrest against social rigidity.
Marcus Messner aims to be independent, to defy the social codes of respectable conduct, moral supremacy, ethical propriety, dignity, and order, the very values that define the 1950s. The backdrop to his rebellion is the Korean War, the symbol of honor, courage, and service.
He insists on not conforming, but instead following his emotions, not the restrictive cultural dictums espoused by those surrounding him. Ever fearful, he mistrusts everyone, especially his father, his roommates, Dean Caudwell, and Olivia.
Ironically, it is this bullheadedness that causes his tragic fate. As Roth observes, "one's most banal, incidental, even comical choices achieve the most disproportionate result."
I consider Marcus a precursor to the progressivism of the 1960s and its unrest against social rigidity.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Jon Meacham - American Lion
This volume by journalist Jon Meacham is likely to be the definitve biography of Andrew Jackson for some time to come. I enjoyed it, although I am more interested in what was happening in the country during the Age of Jackson rather than in the particulars of the life of Jackson.
Jackson was the first man of the people, the first non-elitist, the first so-called self-made man to make it to this country's highest office. He was the first chief executive to directly connect to the American people. He was our first President to use the executive branch to try and better the lives of average Americans. No wonder he is the founder of the Democratic Party!
Jackson built up the office of President as the direct representative of the people, by which he meant working class people rather than the privileged. He found eternally against what he called the "money power" and the "priviliged" in favor of the "the people." Historians will forever debate his particular policies. Some were good; some were not good.
Was he right in fighting Biddle's Bank of the United States? Historians disagree. Was he right in the Eaton affire? (The Eaton affire was a long, convoluted situation which defies simple summary). I am not competent to understand the implications of the Eaton mess. Was he right in his Indian Removal policy? No, he was tragically wrong: his policy of removing Native Americans from the Southeast to Oklahoma resulted in thousands of tragic deaths. Was he right in stressing the President as being the direct representative of the people against entrenced special interests. You bet!
If you wish to understand the person of Andrew Jackson, this is your book. If you wish to understand his times, you must delve deeper, which can be the job of a lifetime.
Jackson was the first man of the people, the first non-elitist, the first so-called self-made man to make it to this country's highest office. He was the first chief executive to directly connect to the American people. He was our first President to use the executive branch to try and better the lives of average Americans. No wonder he is the founder of the Democratic Party!
Jackson built up the office of President as the direct representative of the people, by which he meant working class people rather than the privileged. He found eternally against what he called the "money power" and the "priviliged" in favor of the "the people." Historians will forever debate his particular policies. Some were good; some were not good.
Was he right in fighting Biddle's Bank of the United States? Historians disagree. Was he right in the Eaton affire? (The Eaton affire was a long, convoluted situation which defies simple summary). I am not competent to understand the implications of the Eaton mess. Was he right in his Indian Removal policy? No, he was tragically wrong: his policy of removing Native Americans from the Southeast to Oklahoma resulted in thousands of tragic deaths. Was he right in stressing the President as being the direct representative of the people against entrenced special interests. You bet!
If you wish to understand the person of Andrew Jackson, this is your book. If you wish to understand his times, you must delve deeper, which can be the job of a lifetime.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Kindle
I have followed discussion of the Kindle for the last year. So far I am not interested in purchasing one.
A year later, Amazon's Kindle finds a niche
Story Highlights
Amazon.com's electronic Kindle reader celebrates its first birthday
Device holds about 200 digital books and can reduce bookshelf clutter
Sales have been steady, but the device so far remains mostly a tech novelty
Oprah Winfrey has praised it, but J.K. Rowling vows no e-versions of "Harry Potter"
(CNN) -- It has the curves of a Lamborghini, looks like something an astronaut might take into space and weighs only 10.3 ounces.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader is wireless and can hold about 200 books, plus newspapers and magazines.
Amazon.com's electronic Kindle reader -- a device meant to remove the paper from the page and make reading both more convenient and eco-friendly -- is celebrating its first birthday.
Released in November 2007, the Kindle has sold more than a quarter million units. Its texts account for 10 percent of Amazon's book sales despite the fact that 200,000 titles -- a tiny fraction of the books offered on the site -- are available in digital form.
While exact sales figures are hard to come by, recent estimates have put the Kindle's sales on par with other high-profile mobile devices in their first year. Amazon.com says that the Kindle is currently sold out due to heavy demand.
So what has spurred its success? After all, electronic books have been around, in small numbers, for about a decade. Even Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder and CEO, has admitted that the book is "elegantly suited to its purpose. It's hard to improve on."
One thing that's helped the Kindle is marketing. Where other readers failed to connect with consumers, the Kindle has excelled. The media-savvy Bezos has hardly been publicity shy, gaining his electronic toy a level of exposure most CEOs couldn't begin to fathom.
"You can't discount the prominence of having Amazon behind this," says Paul Reynolds, technology editor at Consumer Reports. "Jeff Bezos is respected for what he's done with Amazon, and if he feels this is a future product in media, people are willing to trust him."
Second, the gadget has been heralded by Oprah Winfrey, whose influence in the publishing world is immense. It's also been embraced by some prominent writers, including Nobel laureate Toni Morrison and best-selling thriller author James Patterson.
Third, with more and more consumers accustomed to reading text on their cell phones and BlackBerrys, the world finally may be ready for an electronic version of a book.
"I checked it out on Amazon and thought it was an intriguing idea, a great way to have a lot of books that don't take up a lot of space," says Emily Branch of Florida, who was moved to buy a Kindle after seeing the hosts of "The View" chatting about it.
"I figured if I didn't like it I could return it within 30 days," Branch says. "There wasn't a chance of that happening once I got it in my hands though."
One clutter-killing Kindle can hold about 200 books. And while other e-readers such as Sony's Reader must connect through a USB port to upload content, the Kindle is a wireless device, thanks to Whispernet, which is powered by Sprint's high-speed data network.
"I think the Whispernet is what sets the Kindle apart from all the other e-readers on the market," says Leslie Nicoll of Portland, Maine, who co-authored "The Amazon Kindle F.A.Q." book after her tech-loving teenage daughter urged her to get a Kindle.
Like Branch, Nicoll says she likes the Kindle's low-impact effect on her bookshelves. "I don't have to worry about giving it to someone else, reselling it on Amazon or finding a place to store it in my house," she says. "For the enjoyment and convenience, it has given me in the past seven months, I consider that it has paid for itself already."
Readers can visit Amazon's online store and upload a new book right to their Kindle. Subscribers also can have electronic versions of The New York Times and other newspapers and magazines delivered automatically to their Kindles in time for reading with their morning cup of coffee.
"The large and tightly interacting collection of Kindle features, that go far beyond those of any other previous e-Book attempt, will cause the Kindle to be the first e-Book to succeed," wrote one reviewer on an Amazon discussion board.
But not everything in Kindle world is roses and gumdrops. There's a difference between modest early success and making a centuries-old print format obsolete. The Kindle sells for $359, a steep price for the average reader in the current economic climate.
"I'm not going to pay $360 for that. I can get books for free," says Nikki Johnson, a college student in Atlanta, Georgia, speaking for traditionalists who are wary of giving up their bound paper volumes.
"There's nothing like reading a nice paperback," she says. "There's nothing like holding or carrying a book, having that tangible quality and it being more than just a piece of data."
So in an unforgiving economy and in a stubbornly old-fashioned medium, will the Kindle ever expand from a tech novelty to a mainstream accessory? It might be too soon to tell.
Blockbuster writers such as J.K. Rowling, author of the "Harry Potter" series, have said they'll never allow their books to appear on the market in electronic form. Yet future, better versions of e-readers may seduce younger consumers who grew up on PSPs and iPhones.
A next-generation model of the Kindle is due in 2009. Early reports indicate the new device will be thinner and will have fixed some current design bugs, such as poorly placed buttons that cause readers to turn pages accidentally.
"I think it's certainly a ways away from hitting the mainstream ... because of the price and the experience a reader gets from long-form reading," says Reynolds of Consumer Reports. "Whether these ... are successful, stand-alone devices remains to be seen. From what I've seen and heard, I think the technology is here to stay."
A year later, Amazon's Kindle finds a niche
Story Highlights
Amazon.com's electronic Kindle reader celebrates its first birthday
Device holds about 200 digital books and can reduce bookshelf clutter
Sales have been steady, but the device so far remains mostly a tech novelty
Oprah Winfrey has praised it, but J.K. Rowling vows no e-versions of "Harry Potter"
(CNN) -- It has the curves of a Lamborghini, looks like something an astronaut might take into space and weighs only 10.3 ounces.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader is wireless and can hold about 200 books, plus newspapers and magazines.
Amazon.com's electronic Kindle reader -- a device meant to remove the paper from the page and make reading both more convenient and eco-friendly -- is celebrating its first birthday.
Released in November 2007, the Kindle has sold more than a quarter million units. Its texts account for 10 percent of Amazon's book sales despite the fact that 200,000 titles -- a tiny fraction of the books offered on the site -- are available in digital form.
While exact sales figures are hard to come by, recent estimates have put the Kindle's sales on par with other high-profile mobile devices in their first year. Amazon.com says that the Kindle is currently sold out due to heavy demand.
So what has spurred its success? After all, electronic books have been around, in small numbers, for about a decade. Even Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder and CEO, has admitted that the book is "elegantly suited to its purpose. It's hard to improve on."
One thing that's helped the Kindle is marketing. Where other readers failed to connect with consumers, the Kindle has excelled. The media-savvy Bezos has hardly been publicity shy, gaining his electronic toy a level of exposure most CEOs couldn't begin to fathom.
"You can't discount the prominence of having Amazon behind this," says Paul Reynolds, technology editor at Consumer Reports. "Jeff Bezos is respected for what he's done with Amazon, and if he feels this is a future product in media, people are willing to trust him."
Second, the gadget has been heralded by Oprah Winfrey, whose influence in the publishing world is immense. It's also been embraced by some prominent writers, including Nobel laureate Toni Morrison and best-selling thriller author James Patterson.
Third, with more and more consumers accustomed to reading text on their cell phones and BlackBerrys, the world finally may be ready for an electronic version of a book.
"I checked it out on Amazon and thought it was an intriguing idea, a great way to have a lot of books that don't take up a lot of space," says Emily Branch of Florida, who was moved to buy a Kindle after seeing the hosts of "The View" chatting about it.
"I figured if I didn't like it I could return it within 30 days," Branch says. "There wasn't a chance of that happening once I got it in my hands though."
One clutter-killing Kindle can hold about 200 books. And while other e-readers such as Sony's Reader must connect through a USB port to upload content, the Kindle is a wireless device, thanks to Whispernet, which is powered by Sprint's high-speed data network.
"I think the Whispernet is what sets the Kindle apart from all the other e-readers on the market," says Leslie Nicoll of Portland, Maine, who co-authored "The Amazon Kindle F.A.Q." book after her tech-loving teenage daughter urged her to get a Kindle.
Like Branch, Nicoll says she likes the Kindle's low-impact effect on her bookshelves. "I don't have to worry about giving it to someone else, reselling it on Amazon or finding a place to store it in my house," she says. "For the enjoyment and convenience, it has given me in the past seven months, I consider that it has paid for itself already."
Readers can visit Amazon's online store and upload a new book right to their Kindle. Subscribers also can have electronic versions of The New York Times and other newspapers and magazines delivered automatically to their Kindles in time for reading with their morning cup of coffee.
"The large and tightly interacting collection of Kindle features, that go far beyond those of any other previous e-Book attempt, will cause the Kindle to be the first e-Book to succeed," wrote one reviewer on an Amazon discussion board.
But not everything in Kindle world is roses and gumdrops. There's a difference between modest early success and making a centuries-old print format obsolete. The Kindle sells for $359, a steep price for the average reader in the current economic climate.
"I'm not going to pay $360 for that. I can get books for free," says Nikki Johnson, a college student in Atlanta, Georgia, speaking for traditionalists who are wary of giving up their bound paper volumes.
"There's nothing like reading a nice paperback," she says. "There's nothing like holding or carrying a book, having that tangible quality and it being more than just a piece of data."
So in an unforgiving economy and in a stubbornly old-fashioned medium, will the Kindle ever expand from a tech novelty to a mainstream accessory? It might be too soon to tell.
Blockbuster writers such as J.K. Rowling, author of the "Harry Potter" series, have said they'll never allow their books to appear on the market in electronic form. Yet future, better versions of e-readers may seduce younger consumers who grew up on PSPs and iPhones.
A next-generation model of the Kindle is due in 2009. Early reports indicate the new device will be thinner and will have fixed some current design bugs, such as poorly placed buttons that cause readers to turn pages accidentally.
"I think it's certainly a ways away from hitting the mainstream ... because of the price and the experience a reader gets from long-form reading," says Reynolds of Consumer Reports. "Whether these ... are successful, stand-alone devices remains to be seen. From what I've seen and heard, I think the technology is here to stay."
Monday, December 1, 2008
Obama the Centrist?
It amuses me to see pundits pointing out that Obama, based on his appointments so far, seems to be a pragmatic Centrist. Is he a Centrist? Based on everything I've learned about him, I would say yes. The amusing thing is those righties during the election who called him a socialist and a radical. What rubbish! Compared to Bush, he might be called liberal. Compared to reality, he is probably a centrist. Compared to Bush, Genghis Khan was a liberal. We shall what happens when takes office, but so far, based on his appointments, Obama will be right in the center (as opposed to right of center), which is what we need after 8 years of right-wing ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)