Ebooks are changing the way we read and write

[Daniel]

Hopefully, this article from the Guardian won't be behind a pay-wall for you. It wasn't for me:
Ebooks are changing the way we read, and the way novelists write

In his article, Paul Mason makes the argument that fiction now competes against many other forms of entertainment, partly because ebooks are read on multi-purpose devices that distract the reader with email, games, video, and apps. He believes it is changing the way authors write because we not only have to hook the reader in more quickly, we have to keep the action going to retain their attention and compete against many distractions. What counts for an immersive read is changing.

Some of the literati bemoan this trend toward "everything has to be a thriller" as the death of artistic writing.

I agree with many of the things Mason says in his article, but I think he's describing only one segment of the reading public. He's certainly not describing me. I read ebooks, but I have a dedicated reading device that does not distract me with other things. I still enjoy a long leisurely read and get impatient with books that are fast-paced for the sake of being fast-paced. I like an immersive read in an engaging story world, and I'm not about to try getting in a few moments of reading time in while I'm waiting in line at Starbucks. (Never mind that I've probably entered a Starbucks fewer than 10 times in my life.)

I'm also not sure about ebooks being the death of artistic writing. I think great writers will continue to produce artistic work no matter what they write. That group will probably never include me, but on the other hand, I tend not to read works that are considered artistic.

If the trend is toward shorter works and serialized works that appeal to low-attention-span readers, perhaps that same movement in KU was the right idea for the wrong reasons. Amazon may have changed to their pay-by-the-page algorithm for reasons other than the ones we believe. Ultimately, the new algorithm rewards books that capture and maintain the reader's attention, whether those books are short or long. Shorts and serials can still do very well under the new system, if they are good enough. The same is true for longer works. Maybe the new algorithm isn't about rewarding longer books; it's about rewarding writing that maintains the attention of readers.

What do you think? Are ebooks the death of artistic writing? Are longer works going to replaced by short, fast-paced stories that appeal to low-attention-span readers? Where do you see yourself fitting in as a reader and a writer in the brave new world of digital publishing?

[vrabinec]

I think people's attention span will last as long as an author keeps their interest. Look at the popularity of series. When a reader finds a world they enjoy, they'll wallow there for months on end.

That said, I think that blogs and internet posts that used to keep internet surfers gobbling up pages are disappearing because the people who had those blogs realize they can make more money writing books. So readers who used to get their internet entertainment for free are left with bare minimum content unless they want to cough up a buck here and there for exclusive content or a book.

[Daniel]

Aug 11, 2015 8:44:55 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

I think people's attention span will last as long as an author keeps their interest. Look at the popularity of series. When a reader finds a world they enjoy, they'll wallow there for months on end.

I'm definitely a wallower. I love finding a cool story world and following the adventures of interesting characters. I guess the real question is what keeps a reader's attention? I don't believe there's only one answer to that question. I suspect there are as many answers as there are readers, although we might be able to generalize to some degree along the lines of genre preferences.

Aug 11, 2015 8:44:55 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

That said, I think that blogs and internet posts that used to keep internet surfers gobbling up pages are disappearing because the people who had those blogs realize they can make more money writing books. So readers who used to get their internet entertainment for free are left with bare minimum content unless they want to cough up a buck here and there for exclusive content or a book.

That's an interesting perspective. Do you suppose the popularity of using free as a soft entry point for a series works as well as it does because it appeals to those former blog readers?

[vrabinec]

I think the principle's the same as sites that have exclusive content. Political and sports sites are great at this. They tease you with some good free content, and you feel compelled to see the rest of what they have to say. Using ESPN's site as an example, they know there are fervent fans of the NFL draft out there. Mel Kiper is the guru most associate with the draft. They have him post his top 5 players and the first paragraph of his analysis of those players, and then they force you to cough up the $5 to see the rest of his stuff on all the players. It's not easy getting the internet browser to part with his $5, but good free content lets him know it'll be worth it.

Of course, the look inside feature does the same thing, but we're not as well known as Kiper is, so our free sample has to be bigger.

[scdaffron]

Aug 11, 2015 8:44:55 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

That said, I think that blogs and internet posts that used to keep internet surfers gobbling up pages are disappearing because the people who had those blogs realize they can make more money writing books. So readers who used to get their internet entertainment for free are left with bare minimum content unless they want to cough up a buck here and there for exclusive content or a book.

Another parallel with web writing is that clear, easy-to-read writing wins. I know I'm not a great writer. I don't create beautiful prose that makes readers weep at the poetic flowery descriptions. And my reviews (correctly) point out that my books don't require a whole lot of brain strain to read.

Although my writing may not be beautiful, both my non-fiction and fiction writing focuses on clarity above all else. And in the current marketplace that may be a good thing. In situations where people don't have a lot of time to read, the ability to jump back into a story probably has more importance than in the past. I don't think readers skim novels in the same way they skim web pages, but if every time you pick up a book, you have to diagram a sentence to figure it out or fall asleep, you probably won't pick it up again.

I liken it to books you bring on an airplane. When I have to deal with the horror of commercial airline travel, I like to read what I refer to as "junk novels" which are mass-market fiction titles that aren't complex (trashy romance, romantic comedies, best-sellers etc.)

When I've brought a book that's too literary or complex with me, the many distractions of flight (announcements, drooling child next to you, lard butt eating something gross on the other side of you, flight attendants asking you stuff, etc.) are a real problem. If I can't get into the book, I put it away and pick up the crappy in-flight magazine instead.

Probably in the future, more books will have to pass the "in flight" test 

[Victoria]

Personally, I don't find reading on my Kindle as immersive as reading a print book (I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to books, actually) so I would say that my expectations of an ebook are different. If I read a story on a screen (I guess I'm thinking back to my fanfiction days) I'm not concentrating as hard as I would be on a print book and I'm likely to keep looking away and losing my place, so I need relatively simple sentences and short paragraphs. I'm not the most attentive reader anyway and often skip big blocks of description, but a giant wall o' text is even more off-putting to me on a screen than a page.

Fanfiction is often posted chapter by chapter and therefore written quite episodically. "Chapters" are only 2000 words or so and each of those 2000-word blocks has to contain an interesting plot development AND a reason to come back next time. I used to really like that about it. I don't know how much that applies to my consumption of ebooks, though - I have a very limited budget for entertainment and I'd much rather buy a book all at once than commit myself (by getting invested in a story) to buying episodes of serialised fiction.

In terms of the wider picture, I guess a literary person might call this a general "dumbing down" of literature or somesuch - but I don't think it's anything new. Writing is evolving all the time - even writers who are alarmed by this digital-age trend probably don't write like Dickens.

[vrabinec]

You know, I think I feel the same way about paper being more immersive. I wonder why that is. It might just be what I grew up with, but it might also be because my mind is so used to clicking through computer screens that a tablet feels like I should be skimming through and picking out the juicy bits. Interesting.

[Daniel]

I think I read just as "immersively" on my Kindle as I do when reading print. I forget that I'm using a Kindle.

However, I think my Kindle reading has infected my paper reading. Kindle gave me quick access to a large number of free/inexpensive books. I'd say I've enjoyed fewer than 25% of them enough to read to the end. Before I had a Kindle, I was much more likely to finish a print book, but that might be because I was more selective about what I picked up. I don't think price had much to do with it because I almost never bought new print books.

[whdean]

I've been reading almost everything on a computer screen for the last few years. Partly it's my eyesight. I started needing reading glasses a couple of years ago, so the small print kills me.

[Victoria]

I wrote a blog post about this. Probably. It's 2AM so the whole post could be about a duck I saw once or how much I love potatoes for all I know. oppositeofpopular.com/2015/08/18/ebooks-might-be-changing-writing-and-im-okay-with-that/

[ameliasmith]

Aug 11, 2015 8:31:37 GMT -5 Daniel said:

 I read ebooks, but I have a dedicated reading device that does not distract me with other things. I still enjoy a long leisurely read and get impatient with books that are fast-paced for the sake of being fast-paced. I like an immersive read in an engaging story world, and I'm not about to try getting in a few moments of reading time in while I'm waiting in line at Starbucks. (Never mind that I've probably entered a Starbucks fewer than 10 times in my life.)

I'm also not sure about ebooks being the death of artistic writing. I think great writers will continue to produce artistic work no matter what they write. That group will probably never include me, but on the other hand, I tend not to read works that are considered artistic.

I think that these articles may have a point when it comes to people reading on their phones/phablets/tablets, but dedicated ereaders are another ball of wax. I skim just as much, if not more, when reading print books. I'm reading one now (Ready Player One).

However, I think my Kindle reading has infected my paper reading. Kindle gave me quick access to a large number of free/inexpensive books. I'd say I've enjoyed fewer than 25% of them enough to read to the end. Before I had a Kindle, I was much more likely to finish a print book, but that might be because I was more selective about what I picked up. I don't think price had much to do with it because I almost never bought new print books.

This goes for me, too. So yes, ebooks may be changing how I read a little bit, but not in the way people complain about, and I don't think it's affected my writing a whole lot yet.

[Daniel]

Aug 17, 2015 20:10:23 GMT -5 Victoria said:

I wrote a blog post about this. Probably. It's 2AM so the whole post could be about a duck I saw once or how much I love potatoes for all I know. oppositeofpopular.com/2015/08/18/ebooks-might-be-changing-writing-and-im-okay-with-that/

Thanks for the shout-out and the link. That may be the first time anyone has called me "excellent."

Your article was great. My brain couldn't string two words together at 1 AM, so kudos. I'm okay with writing/reading changing too, although I'll miss some of the epic and immersive fantasy series from "the old days."

[Victoria]

Aug 18, 2015 8:06:05 GMT -5 Daniel said:

Thanks for the shout-out and the link. That may be the first time anyone has called me "excellent."

Your article was great. My brain couldn't string two words together at 1 AM, so kudos. I'm okay with writing/reading changing too, although I'll miss some of the epic and immersive fantasy series from "the old days."

You're welcome! And thank you I would be very surprised if people did stop writing huge fantasy series, though, at least in the forseeable future. Look at the popularity of Game of Thrones!

[Daniel]

Aug 18, 2015 6:16:03 GMT -5 ameliasmith said:

So yes, ebooks may be changing how I read a little bit, but not in the way people complain about, and I don't think it's affected my writing a whole lot yet.

Ditto. And I wonder if that's a problem I need to correct.

For my next series of Vaetra books, I'm seriously looking at several changes, including the way I write them. I'm considering shorter stories (around 50K) and more streamlined scenes.

Victoria talked about how fanfiction is often written episodically with 1-2K chapters that focus on a new plot development and end with a hook to pull you forward. I don't see that as being much different from what I do now with my scenes, but I think I can refine my approach. From what I've read, all scenes should move the story forward and end in a way that encourages the reader to keep going. Currently, my scene lengths are all over the place; some are 500 words and others are 5,000. Part of me thinks that each scene should be as long as it needs to be, but another part of me wonders if I shouldn't focus on making my scenes more consistent and digestible. The issue is really one of pacing, so I guess I'm wondering if I need to learn how to change the "leisurely pace" (as Becca Mills puts it) of my writing.

I haven't decided anything yet. The new Vaetra series is still percolating. I have two projects ahead of it, so I have time to think about what I'll do and perhaps write a couple of short works in the meantime to test some theories.

[vrabinec]

Aug 18, 2015 8:33:57 GMT -5 Daniel said:

For my next series of Vaetra books, I'm seriously looking at several changes, including the way I write them. I'm considering shorter stories (around 50K) and more streamlined scenes.
.

The plot determines scene length. If you want shorter scenes, then you'll have to plot the thing so that there aren't many scenes that have a whole lot of stuff happening in one place at one time. I think it would require adhering fairly strictly to an outline. Go to point A and find the magic dildo. Go to point B and insert into the statue to bring it to life. Statue descends on city and destroys. etc...Like a thriller that inherently jumps from scene to scene.

[Victoria]

Aug 18, 2015 8:33:57 GMT -5 Daniel said:

Ditto. And I wonder if that's a problem I need to correct.

For my next series of Vaetra books, I'm seriously looking at several changes, including the way I write them. I'm considering shorter stories (around 50K) and more streamlined scenes.

Victoria talked about how fanfiction is often written episodically with 1-2K chapters that focus on a new plot development and end with a hook to pull you forward. I don't see that as being much different from what I do now with my scenes, but I think I can refine my approach. From what I've read, all scenes should move the story forward and end in a way that encourages the reader to keep going. Currently, my scene lengths are all over the place; some are 500 words and others are 5,000. Part of me thinks that each scene should be as long as it needs to be, but another part of me wonders if I shouldn't focus on making my scenes more consistent and digestible. The issue is really one of pacing, so I guess I'm wondering if I need to learn how to change the "leisurely pace" (as Becca Mills puts it) of my writing.

I haven't decided anything yet. The new Vaetra series is still percolating. I have two projects ahead of it, so I have time to think about what I'll do and perhaps write a couple of short works in the meantime to test some theories.

Yes, I was writing something for that blog post along the lines of "2000-word action-packed scenes, each with its own hook?! Crazy fanfictioners, amirite?" when it occurred to me that that's actually probably not a terrible way to write a novel. My target for my current book has always been 50k, and I've been worrying that that's too short, but now I'm beginning to think it might be okay.

Of course, my situation is different to yours, Daniel, because I tend naturally towards shorter scenes and fast pacing, and it's romance not fantasy. I certainly don't feel qualified to express an opinion on what would work for you in your genre. Readers of your existing books probably enjoy settling down with them and giving them their full attention. But if you'd like to offer something a bit more snackable alongside them, it could be worth at least giving it a try to see if you like writing that way.

vrabinec said:

The plot determines scene length. If you want shorter scenes, then you'll have to plot the thing so that there aren't many scenes that have a whole lot of stuff happening in one place at one time. I think it would require adhering fairly strictly to an outline. Go to point A and find the magic dildo. Go to point B and insert into the statue to bring it to life. Statue descends on city and destroys. etc...Like a thriller that inherently jumps from scene to scene.

I would read the shit out of this book.

[Pru Freda]

Trust Fred to lower the tone. But, Hell yes, I'd read it, too.

[Daniel]

Aug 18, 2015 9:02:34 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

Aug 18, 2015 8:33:57 GMT -5 Daniel said:

For my next series of Vaetra books, I'm seriously looking at several changes, including the way I write them. I'm considering shorter stories (around 50K) and more streamlined scenes.
.

The plot determines scene length. If you want shorter scenes, then you'll have to plot the thing so that there aren't many scenes that have a whole lot of stuff happening in one place at one time. I think it would require adhering fairly strictly to an outline. Go to point A and find the magic dildo. Go to point B and insert into the statue to bring it to life. Statue descends on city and destroys. etc...Like a thriller that inherently jumps from scene to scene.

Exactly. That's why I have to think through this potential change carefully and do some experimentation.

My plots tend to get complicated quickly because the characters drive the story. The MC has to have a good reason to go to point A in search of the magic dildo. The villain has to have a good reason to protect the dildo or try to get to it first. The statue has to have a good back-story for why it is at point B and why the dildo works to bring it back to life. Once alive, the former statue has to have great reasons for why it must destroy the city. It's endless. Passions and motivations are rarely simple, and the way they affect character interrelationships has a way of propagating sub-plot threads. Even the simplest of ideas blossom into 75K stories with me. My long scenes are long because, as you said, a lot of stuff happens in one place at one time. In fact, my fastest-paced scenes are often my longest.

I think the answer for me is to keep the number of characters to a minimum. That's what I have to experiment with.

[vrabinec]

Is it possible the introduction of the backstory is what's bloating the scenes? Could the reason for the search for the dildo be revealed in bits and pieces as the dildo bearer nears it? Of course, if the reason behind it is gonna be interesting, then I think a lot of times it's inherently a complex tale that can't be told ahead of time without bloating the preceding scenes.

I'm thinking of how Eddings did his with the Belgariad exposition. He threw bits of the backstory of the magic into interesting little scenes that were a bit on the skinny side, then packed in a paragraph or two of backstory, and it filled out the skinny scene, and got the reader up to speed on the magic without overwhelming him with it with long exposition scenes.

[Daniel]

Aug 18, 2015 10:31:52 GMT -5 Victoria said:

Of course, my situation is different to yours, Daniel, because I tend naturally towards shorter scenes and fast pacing, and it's romance not fantasy. I certainly don't feel qualified to express an opinion on what would work for you in your genre. Readers of your existing books probably enjoy settling down with them and giving them their full attention. But if you'd like to offer something a bit more snackable alongside them, it could be worth at least giving it a try to see if you like writing that way.

I'm a planner, so I'd have to build snackability into the story from the beginning. That's part of the reason I think I can give it a try. My inclination is to put a lot into the world-building and back-story. That seems to appeal to my existing readers, but there are too few of them. If I want more readers, I have to write something that appeals to more readers. (Seems obvious, right?) The trick seems to be striking a balance between what I'm willing to write and what the majority of readers want to read. I'm willing to compromise my sensibilities to improve the appeal of my work, but only to a point.

It's possible that I'm on a fool's errand. Based on what's popular, the fantasy market is heavily skewed toward dark, fast-paced, angst-ridden, dystopian works. Annie Bellet is an excellent example of someone who has it dialed in. On the other end of the book-length spectrum, even GoT could be described that way. I won't read that stuff, so I won't write it, either. It may not be possible for me to do well with the kind of story I do like to read/write. If that's the case, I'll have to keep writing for the limited audience I already have and hope the market changes some day.