I read this op-ed by Roy Blount Jr. twice trying to figure out what the point was. Hint: it’s a bad thing that after two reads I was still unsure if this was a joke, was meant to be ironic or had a broader point to make. I actually think it is the later, for all those confused as well, here it is: the audio reader feature on the Kindle II is bad because it potentially will deprive authors of the ability to sell their work as audio books. What you see from Blount here is what is called “burying the lede.” The really sad part is that Blount has a case to make, and totally fails to do so, and in fact does more damage than help to his own cause. What he should’ve said:
1. Audio books represent an important stream of revenue for authors, and in many cases make the difference between break even and profit for those who put pen to paper.
2. It is important consider how technology both opens and closes new distribution channels and media, and the time to consider this is early in the process. Ask both the music industry and the movie industry how it works if you wait too long.
3. We are seeing new improvements in text to voice that seem to indicate we’ll need to rethink how the industry licenses and profits from these new technologies.
4. Our proposal is ….
and there is the problem….no proposal shows up in the NYT op-ed.
C’mon. If you are going to spend the time to get an opinion piece in any form, in any publication, you have to make sure you’ve got a cogent argument and a solution or proposal to the problem you’re addressing. I find it hard to believe that that Author’s Guild, made up as it is of people who MAKE THEIR LIVING FROM WRITING is super happy with the lack of persuasive impact and cogent thought shown here.