An editor at PW asks to look at people's kindles, pretending she wants to see how they work but in fact to see what they are reading. Okay, whatever. Go for it. Then she says:
“It’s really expensive,” she said of the Kindle 2, which Amazon sells for $359. “If you’re going to pay that, you’re giving a statement to the world that you like to read — and you’re probably not using it to read a mass market paperback.”
Really? It's a pretty good mix on mine. And librarything supports me on this.
ETA: The article degenerates from there. People who think they can conclude much of anything by what people keep on the visible bookshelves in their houses are amazingly naive. I want to know what's sitting by the bed. And I _really_ want at their library record, and how they get rid of books. You could look at someone's collection and think they were the unwashed and unread, and not realize they read 3x what you do and wrote credible reviews and essays on twice what you read.
ETAYA: I think the "safe bet" phrase needs to be banned by editors.
"It’s a safe bet that the Kindle is unlikely to attract people who seldom pick up a book or, on the other end of the spectrum, people who prowl antiquarian book fairs for first editions."
And yet in this _same_ article, Ed Rollins' kindle is packed with newspapers. He may NEVER pick up a book -- and yet read more than the rest of us.
"Publishers will no longer get the bump that comes when travelers see someone reading, say, the latest James Patterson and say to themselves: “I’ve been meaning to get that. I think I’ll buy a copy at Hudson News before I hop on the train.”"
Yeah. Cause _James_ freaking _Patterson_ needs a _bump_. Fuck. Words fail.
The remaining paragraphs are devoted to mindless status comparisons and whining that with the kindle, it interferes with fantasizing about someone next to you reading a book. Cause you can't, like, fucking _ask_ someone what they're reading when they have a kindle in front of them. But you could, as the article started out, ask to borrow the kindle, and snoop.
I don't like these people. I think they are bad human beings. I think their morals are poor and their ethics are worse, and they are degenerate snobs who pine for an ahistorical past. Maybe they are addicted to some component of ink and paper that I am allergic to.
Maybe they've never moved from one place to another, and been forced to pack and unpack their books.