I seem to have pissed off Caitlín R. Kiernan

Today writer Caitlín R. Kiernan posted in her LJ an entry that contained a screed against eReaders, a topic that has become common for her. This is the first time I responded to her about eReaders.  She replied in a manner that was at times dismissive and condescending and I replied back. Evidently despite the fact that she routinely solicits comments and responded to me in a way that would ensure I would want to respond, I was out of line and she deleted my comment with an admonition to bring my discussion to my journal. So I have. Here's the reply she gave to my initial comment and here's the response that she deleted.

You can read her entry and my initial response here. 

This is her reply:

"Now, allow me to retort:

the concept that There Can Be Only One and that these "cold, soulless, plastic" devices are somehow heralding the end of paper books or signaling sloth or callow attitudes is strange to me.

Then talk to the publishers.

Getting an English copy of the latest installment of their science fiction series can be impossible. If the company does not ship to Africa or Far East Asia, if the shipping would cost five times the cost of the book, such readers are SOL. With an eReader, they can continue reading. That hundred dollar investment can be the cost of a handful of paperback novels.

Actually, the same problem exists with ebooks. I get frequent emails from people who whine about how they can't get an electronic version of a book of mine in this or that country. because books are not licensed for all countries. This part's very complicated. Now, readers do easily steal ebooks, but pirating is another matter.

I also have a joint disorder. I cannot hold books like The Stand or Under the Dome for more than 20 minutes before pain or my shaking hand force
me to put them down, which means I would not read epic books if I did not have an eReader. I also have a muscle issue going on with my eyes that causes me trouble when reading for long periods of time. With my Kindle, I can adjust the font size of whatever I am reading to very larger or very small, depending on what I need. Without it, when the spasms hit, I would be unable to read much outside of what is available in large print. I guess I could try to get the epic novels on audio but that appeals to me less than reading for myself.

All of these problems can be addressed without ebooks. Audiobooks, lap desks, and, for that matter, lying on one's side on a soft surface (say a bed, as I often do), with the book open on a mattress, sofa, etc. And, I'm sorry. I'm blind in one eye, and the vision in the other is terrible. The industry should not change to
accommodate the infirmities of a few.

Technology solves those problems and the reactionary alternative is that I and people like me just need to shut up and read what we can when we can because the technology offends other people.

It's not that you need to shut up. It's that you and the gods of tech need to stop (or at least slow) this arms-open race towards dismantling the pre-existing market. Ebooks should have never been more than a niche market. Like large-print books, for example. Or audiobooks.

And please, please, please never use the phrase "dead tree books." It's dumb, and tiresome, and antiquated (I first heard it in the eighties). It implies that ebooks are somehow more friendly to the environment than are paper books, which is, at best, a delusion. At worst, a lie. Think of the petrochemicals and heavy metals required to create one Kindle. And think how this year's Kindle will clog landfills as soon as a shinier one is available, or ten years from now, when all current ereaders are obsolete (because planned obsolescence is built into this business model). The truth is that ebooks pose an ecological nightmare.

Oh, and never mind the increasing numbers of studies demonstrating that audiobooks and ebooks result lower reading comprehension."


My deleted response:

whine... Hmm... If there is such a bulk of people besieging you with desires to eRead your books, perhaps it is a sign that this "niche" technology is not so niche after all.

Plenty of people overseas are permitted to purchase properly licensed eBooks and the occasions when licensing is complicated does not invalidate the experiences of the people who legally purchase eBooks they would not have been able to obtain in paper form.
Did you mean for this to sound so contemptuous, your "I'm sorry" notwithstanding? If I were to give you advice on how to go to sleep at night based on what works for me, would you would tell me to piss up a rope? It is presumptuous to tell a person who has spent plenty of time living with her books and her body that she just needs to experiment with what works for you. Yes, I have tried to read in various ways that permit me to read large books in comfort and eReaders work best for me.
The industry did not change to accommodate the infirmities of the few as the technology was not invented for them. But the infirm are actually not so "few." They proved this when the disabled and elderly helped fuel the incredible early adoption numbers of the first generation iPad. The "infirm" are consumers with demands that they should be able to remedy with available technology and money. Telling those people that they are a "niche" and that their use of technology hampers the old business plan and as a result should be stopped is insulting. Life isn't always fair but there are times when it can be and such possibilities should not be dismissed just because they may change an old business model.
Your language above (open-arms race, dismantling) is pretty hyperbolic and presumptive. I buy lots of paper books and it is not my fault the
publishing industry is not handling the new technology to your satisfaction. Interestingly, though, your words are so familiar. In the 70s and 80s, few understood the potential of the personal computer and many moaned about the changes it brought because of all the bumps in the road. But now we shop differently, we spend our leisure time differently, we communicate differently. What is so wrong with reading differently too? I saw your addendum that eReaders lower comprehension rates. Alarmist studies have proven the same thing about computers but here we are, writing and communicating at a reasonably intelligent level.

The problem is that technology happens before industries know how to handle it. Boo.com was an early eCommerce disaster but these days we don't think of it when we shop online. Give eBooks time and the complications surrounding their use will fade. Markets change but reading will not die and that is what is important to readers and writers - that there remain people willing to pay for books however they are delivered. eBooks work in that model.

And as for dead tree books, the ecological problems with eReaders has not entered into this argument for me until you brought it up. Computers, phones, televisions  - they all have planned obsolescence built in and occupy plenty of landfill space. eReaders are a drop in the bucket of the eco-problems on this planet but I wasn't using dead trees to discuss eco issues. It's just a phrase I employ when paper gets too repetitive."



I reproduce this not because I feel like this needs further discussion and I certainly ask that no one deride Kiernan in her journal about this,  but I won't eliminate discussion here it if it happens.  I just know that Kiernan often asks for comments (Comments, Kittens! and similar), I gave her a comment that was reasonably polite, her reply was patronizing at best, I responded and she deleted it with an admonition that makes my comment look like I said some pretty dreadful and utterly argumentative things.  I didn't.  I just replied to a woman who indicates that fans who want to read her works electronically are whiners and that the "infirm" can suck a dick as far as she's concerned, which was, given her own physical state, shocking.

Also, many of my readers here also read her journal and I didn't want anyone here to think I had said something horribly offensive to her.  I didn't. 

I expect stupid shit from people like writerspleasure.  I don't expect it from a writer whose career I have championed for years and a writer who asks for interaction and then deletes it when it doesn't suit her purposes.  This does not change my opinion of her talent but given that my life and online endeavors revolve around books, I did not want it to be perceived that I insulted a writer whose works I respect and I am a bit shocked at how this went down.

ETA:  Just to make it clear, Kiernan does not owe her readers anything.  That I am a fan does not play into this really other than my shock when a writing idol behaved strangely.  So just because I am a fan does not mean she should permit me to write anything in comments to her journal.  However, when a writer actively solicits comments in an open journal, we who read it can assume we are being treated as equals because blogging is an inherently democratic medium, and that our opinions are welcome as long as we are not patently offensive.  It's bad and unappealing form to delete comments just because they do not agree with you.  Of course Kiernan can run her blog however she sees fit - IROB had to develop a comment policy, as much as it pained me to do it - but it is bizarre to ask for comments and then delete what was reasonably polite back and forth.  And when a  blogger asks for comments and gets them and then deletes them in a manner that could indicate to some the commenter was out of line, it's a bullshit move.  What is most important here is the bullshit move, though the strange ideas that the infirm should fall behind a failing business model and that people who want to read Kiernan's words in electronic format whine to her about it are definitely interesting.

ETA2: It would appear that Kiernan has deleted my first comment as well, the comment she deemed polite enough to respond to. Should anyone want to see it, let me know and I'll post it.