On the one hand, I can see that this is the way at least certain variant forms of literature are heading. In and of itself, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The earliest “hypertext novels” I’ve seen were either abysmal failures of mere adult variations of Choose Your Own Adventure. But the boundaries have barely begun to be explored, and I think it’s well within the range of possibility that someone(s) will come a multimedia reading “experience” that will simply redefine the whole way we look at literature.

Having said that, the reason (good) novels, poems, short stories, etc., work, is because they adhere to certain conventions. In this case, that’s the use of text and text alone. (Notice I didn’t say anything about how that text was transmitted – on that point, I don’t think it matters.) With very few exceptions, that serve to prove the rule, I think. So while new forms of literature will almost certainly develop, there will remain a place for text-alone, e.g., books as we currently know them.

As to how popular the respective forms will be, who knows. But the kids, they are a-changin’. It may be easier to leap from MySpace to a multimedia “book”, and it may be hard to produce reasons why they should.

I absolutely agree that massive multimedia is a mixed blessing when it comes to fiction. Even if it were free and easy (and not all authors are creative with media as they are with words), it still takes away from the essential nature of a novel. I know that movies can be better than books, but it sure isn’t the usual result.

Rob Preece
Publisher

Experiments are good, and Mr. Inman’s work should spark some interest in new forms of publishing, in general. As Picasso reminded us: “The purpose of art is to create enthusiasm.”

But in promoting his experiment, Mr. Inman should be careful to distinguish literature from souped-up PowerPoint presentations. Claiming that the “vook” is an advance over “text-only” books is a claim that I will need to see before I believe it.

Reaching people for whom the Net is TV-with-the-irritation-of-reading.

When Sara Nelson chirps to the Times, “Publishers are going to be confronted with the idea that either the words on the page have to be completely compelling on their own, or they have to figure out a way to create new sorts of subliminal draws in the new medium,” the rich irony of books that can’t cut it as books being shot up with the collagen of video and Twitter presents itself. Pucker up, bookywooky.

It’s sad to see publishing thrashing about so, like a triple-bypass Boomer trying to crunk dance. Attempting to retrofit an industry built on reading to a society bent on watching is going to produce some real monsters.