I feel really stupid because honestly, I don't understand all this anger. I understand disappointment. As a reader, I know I'm sad when I hunt the shelves for the next book in a series and can't yet find it. Then I go on and give my money to someone else.
I don't understand being pissed off at the author. Maybe the book is hard for them. Maybe their doing something else. I don't actually think it's any of my business since they have a livlihood to make and I am a tiny, itsy bitsy part of it that may not even matter a hill of beans.
I don't understand the author being pissed off at readers (is that not self-defeating somehow?).
I do understand that, if an author blogs, he/she takes the risk of inviting commentary from their audience, negative and positive. That's living in public and you have to put on the grown up pants and deal with it responsibly.
If author doesn't want negative commentary, don't open up your life to the public. The risk is always there.
But I don't see what that has to do with whether books are commodities. Of course they are. Just like CDs are commodities and posters are commodities and anything you exchange money for is a commodity.
The art behind is a different thing. If I can use an argument from the digital art world, the story is the "orginal," the readers are buying copies. The original art belongs to the publisher who owns the copyright on it and paid the upfront price (which they hope to get back by selling the commodity). The readers own the commodity, the book.
There has been years of exploration of what is "art" and what is a "commodity" in the art world due to the development of digital art. My opinion is based upon it. It seems sound to me, but go ahead and form your own. We live in a world where art is increasingly ephemeral.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 06:37 pm (UTC)I don't understand being pissed off at the author. Maybe the book is hard for them. Maybe their doing something else. I don't actually think it's any of my business since they have a livlihood to make and I am a tiny, itsy bitsy part of it that may not even matter a hill of beans.
I don't understand the author being pissed off at readers (is that not self-defeating somehow?).
I do understand that, if an author blogs, he/she takes the risk of inviting commentary from their audience, negative and positive. That's living in public and you have to put on the grown up pants and deal with it responsibly.
If author doesn't want negative commentary, don't open up your life to the public. The risk is always there.
But I don't see what that has to do with whether books are commodities. Of course they are. Just like CDs are commodities and posters are commodities and anything you exchange money for is a commodity.
The art behind is a different thing. If I can use an argument from the digital art world, the story is the "orginal," the readers are buying copies. The original art belongs to the publisher who owns the copyright on it and paid the upfront price (which they hope to get back by selling the commodity). The readers own the commodity, the book.
There has been years of exploration of what is "art" and what is a "commodity" in the art world due to the development of digital art. My opinion is based upon it. It seems sound to me, but go ahead and form your own. We live in a world where art is increasingly ephemeral.