In the sciences, digital modes of publication are already regarded as equivalent (if not superior) to their printed analogues, whereas in the humanities, hard-copies still count as the silver... Show moreIn the sciences, digital modes of publication are already regarded as equivalent (if not superior) to their printed analogues, whereas in the humanities, hard-copies still count as the silver bullet to aggrandise symbolic capital in the sense of Bourdieu. While the scientist community seems to have overcome the general scepticism towards the digital realm, humanist academics especially in Germany appear more reluctant to fully embrace the new technologies. Apart from just ‘publishing’ texts in a strict sense, social media, blogs and platforms also hold a lot of catalyst potential especially regarding reflective communication, which is barely made use of due to the stigma of poor quality. The printed book, on the other hand, remains among the indispensable criteria to gain a tenured position. “Researching” and “writing (documenting the results)“ appear as separate stages in the sciences, but are closely interlocked in the humanities – so the geneses of texts may indeed differ to a degree rendering those processes incomparable. But even though it may sound like comparing apples and oranges, it reveals the crux of the matter: The practices of the disciplines have grown historically. We wish to emphasize that some elements of today’s scholarly practice are not so much the best possible solution to meet the needs of academic discourse, but rather atavisms, once established as compromises between what was needed and what was technically possible. Thus, they need to be carefully reassessed in order to eliminate inhibitions, p. e. those rooting in the specific limitations inherent to the printed book as a static, unidirectional medium. Quite possibly, a closer look at the situation in Germany might reveal the authority of the printed book as overrated and in fact hindering rather than advancing knowledge and scholarly discourse. Show less
Due to the conglomeration of media and publishing companies in the twentieth century (McCleery, 2007), the size of publishing companies has become more polarized, with a majority of small... Show moreDue to the conglomeration of media and publishing companies in the twentieth century (McCleery, 2007), the size of publishing companies has become more polarized, with a majority of small publishers comprising a small percent of revenue and market share compared to the few, but powerful, larger publishing houses (Publishers Association, ‘UK Book Publishing Industry in Statistics’ 2014). In economics, the polarizing principle asserts that ‘developments at one pole of the corporate/cultural spectrum are often counterbalanced by antithetical innovations at the other’ which has, in the publishing industry, led to ‘the emergence of tiny publishing houses’ at the other end of the spectrum in opposition to the conglomerates (Brown et al 2006). This article examines the distribution and disruption of power in the publishing industry by emphasising the role of the small press. Through interview data with small publishers in the United Kingdom, this article considers the power of the small press. Ultimately this article argues that small publishing companies disrupt the power of the conglomerates in the publishing industry by innovation—a characteristic of the entrepreneurially-oriented small firm. By using Johannessen’s six categories of newness (2001), this article illustrates the ways in which small publishers are using innovation to disrupt power in the book industry. Show less
In the spring of 1933, students at many German universities raided libraries and staged public and dramatically effective burnings of books that they deemed “un-German”. In the light of torches,... Show moreIn the spring of 1933, students at many German universities raided libraries and staged public and dramatically effective burnings of books that they deemed “un-German”. In the light of torches, accompanied by marching band music and officers of the SA in uniform, the students burnt the works of authors like Karl Marx, Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud, Erich Maria Remarque and Erich Kästner. These book burnings were not only the destruction of ink, glue and paper to destroy the material books themselves, it was carried out to have a symbolic purpose. To start with, the political and historical backgrounds for these events are shortly given. This is followed by an analysis of the symbolic dimensions of burning books that were pursued by the national socialists, by example of the libricide in front of the Humboldt-Universität Berlin. This was the most important of the book burnings in 1933 as it was broadcasted throughout the whole country and the minister for propaganda, Goebbels, even held a speech. It did not suffice for the national socialists to destroy the books, but the public should see what happens to thoughts that were not compliant with their ideology, demonstrating that the Nazis had proclaimed themselves as authority over the minds and morals of people. Show less
When wishing to understand textual communication today, it can be helpful to start out from an understanding of currently occurring cultural shifts. Reading and writing surround us every day and... Show moreWhen wishing to understand textual communication today, it can be helpful to start out from an understanding of currently occurring cultural shifts. Reading and writing surround us every day and everywhere, but there are fundamental changes in how long, deep, and careful we read nowadays. In times of ever faster and shorter instant messages, articles, and information snippets available to the modern reader, the question arises which new responsibilities this introduces for the reader. How can we theorise these developments in order to come to a more adequate understanding of reading, writing, and textual communication today, and consequently formulate practical means of engaging with this ‘hybrid form’ of digital and analogue texts? Whereas one might believe that reader responsibility came into this world when Barthes proclaimed the “birth of the reader”, I would like to argue that reader responsibility is an integral part of every reading process and every engagement with text. What Barthes announced in 1967 thus, was rather the birth of our awareness of the responsibilities of the reader than the birth of the reader her- or himself. It is this awareness that has received a further extension in contemporary times. Through the investigation of digital reading, we can retrospectively determine the properties of ‘analogue texts’, and also compare reading ‘then and now’. Contemporary reading practices are often seen as more flexible: readers can choose from a variety of gadgets and media how to access their desired reading material. They might be able to interact with authors and publishers more quickly and directly. And while this notion also needs to be evaluated critically, overall reading has come a long way from the formerly more hierarchical and one-directional mode of communication. It is this realisation that enables the ‘birth’ of reader responsibility or rather, the understanding that without the active interpretation of the reader, a text cannot come alive. But are texts really more freely and democratically accessible nowadays? The apparently self-evident nature of reader responsibility can also be considered one of its greatest obstacles. When taken for granted, it is no longer actively sought out or fought for. Readers might then ‘lose’ their own agency when faced with the author and her or his text(s). In an awareness of potential limitations to reader responsibility, I thus wish to investigate how the reader can bring a text to life, and how a more wide-spread embrace of reader responsibility can lead to a more fruitful and healthy reading behaviour and culture. Show less
While open access publishing for journals is well established, open access monograph publishing is taking longer to gain momentum. This is in large part due to the financial challenges involved in... Show moreWhile open access publishing for journals is well established, open access monograph publishing is taking longer to gain momentum. This is in large part due to the financial challenges involved in publishing monographs. Publishers are concerned that the availability of a free open access edition will cannibalise print sales and therefore the publisher’s ability to recoup the costs involved in producing a book i.e. peer review, editing, typesetting, technological infrastructure, sales, marketing and staff. But is that really the case? Or does the availability of the open access version mean wider access to the book, all round the world and to new audiences, and in some cases increased print sales as a result of the greater visibility? This article will look at some statistics from the OAPEN-UK / Jisc project that has been investigating open access monograph publishing during the last five years. As part of its research, the project ran a pilot comparing open access monograph download figures with print sales of comparable books to assess what the effect on print sales actually is. It will also review the Knowledge Unlatched pilot, which made 28 books by a range of publishers available as open access, with some interesting results. The outcome of these pilots will be compared with UCL Press’s own experience since launching as the UK’s first fully open access university press in June 2015, along with some examples from other open access publishers. Show less
The rise of Open Access (OA) and its Gold business model – based on Article Process Charges (APC’s) – led to a new phenomenon that might be potentially damaging for the development of OA and the... Show moreThe rise of Open Access (OA) and its Gold business model – based on Article Process Charges (APC’s) – led to a new phenomenon that might be potentially damaging for the development of OA and the quality of academic publications: the predatory publisher. These publishers do not list positive peer-reviews as a criteria for their publications, but the fact that the supply side (i.e. the author, his/her institution, or a funding body) has paid for it. By taking on everything or even actively sending spam mail to academics, offering a chance to publish with them, these publishers create misconceptions about OA and, more importantly, may even devalue OA publications. The problem with modern technology is that everyone can build a website and pretend to be an OA publisher, which makes it even easier for these predatory publishers. So how to restore this trust and make sure that all OA publications are of a certain quality? Who will check the authority of these publishers, and how? Who will step up and protect authors, but also the concept of OA, from falling into the hands of these predatory publishers whose only goal it is to make money? Big OA platforms such as OAPEN Library and DOAJ only accept material that has been peer-reviewed. Others, like Jeffrey Beall, have made a blacklist of all potentially damaging publishers. In the end, a growing awareness seems to be one of the most important features to tackle this problem that is harmful on various levels. This paper will dive into the results – both positive and negative – of predatory publishers. Show less
Fanfiction has been increasingly thrust into the spotlight of mainstream publishing culture. With the rise of the internet; both access to and production of fanfiction have exploded, and what was... Show moreFanfiction has been increasingly thrust into the spotlight of mainstream publishing culture. With the rise of the internet; both access to and production of fanfiction have exploded, and what was previously a private activity has been both normalized and even co-opted into six-figure deals with major publishing houses. Communities of fan writers and readers have not depended on outside authorization; they resist such attempts, preferring to authorize themselves. This tradition of self-authorization has often created conflicts between fan writers and outside interests, both in academia and in the broader realm of “official” content creators and disseminators. Further, fan writing is unusual in that it is presented in both the private and public spheres; it is often available to all readers at the click of a search engine, but fan authors operate in communities that are often literally, if not figuratively, locked to outsiders. Recent incidents such as FicGate, in which students in an undergraduate course began to comment on fan writings on several websites as part of their assignments, polarized both fandom and academics in Fan Studies because it blurred the lines of participation on both sides. In another case, Amazon’s Kindle Worlds effort sought to monetize fan authors and fanfiction by licensing certain properties in which fan writers could legally sell their works—provided that they subscribe to stringent limitations on content. Surprising no one (except possibly Amazon) neither corporate franchises nor fan authors were particularly interested in this venture. Using these case studies in tandem with authorship theory, this essay will examine how fandoms effectively “authorize” and empower writers in their community and block out those they deem outsiders, and what this means for those who want to study their writings as a body of literature in their own right. Show less
There is a complex relationship between the authority of (printed) texts and their contents. While this is a worthwhile and indeed underrepresented research topic, this contribution will explore a... Show moreThere is a complex relationship between the authority of (printed) texts and their contents. While this is a worthwhile and indeed underrepresented research topic, this contribution will explore a different angle. For Megan Benton, the book is “a cultural emblem, [...] its particular content [...] often regarded merely as one ingredient in the larger iconographic package”. She continues, “one owns books for many reasons beyond a desire to read them” (271). Among other definitions, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary indicates that authority is the “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior” or a “convincing force” (83). What kinds of authority (and other characteristics) do we attribute to those who surround themselves with books and filled bookshelves? How do filled bookshelves “command thought, opinion, or behavior”? What role does the book as a cultural object play in establishing and perpetuating positions of (intellectual?) authority? The term “furniture books” denotes books on display for representative purposes. Book sales clubs like the American Book-of-the-Month Club (BOMC) were a prime opportunity for consumers to buy “fine book sets” in affordable but attractive bindings “not simply because they wanted to read them but also because they wished to display them as prized possessions” (BOMC founder Harry Scherman, qtd. in Radway, 160). This short paper will reflect upon the authority of books as objects on display during the second half of the twentieth century. In regards to the current changes in book and reading culture, the paper will explore new forms of authority. Traditional furniture books have lost their wide appeal. However, thick and heavy tomes still demand our attention. Even today – in an age of bare shelves due to the popularity of digital reading – literary critics often make a connection between the materiality of a book and its implicit importance. (Works cited: Benton, Megan: “Too Many Books”: Book Ownership and Cultural Identity in the 1920s. In: American Quarterly 49.2 (June 1997), 268–297. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh edition. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 2011. Radway, Janice: A feeling for books: The Book-of-the-Month Club, literary taste, and middle-class desire. Chapel Hill, NC: The Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1997.) Show less
“Computers have rendered us all gods of type, a privilege we could never have anticipated in the age of the typewriter.” Simon Garfield states this in his book Just My Type: A Book About Fonts. The... Show more“Computers have rendered us all gods of type, a privilege we could never have anticipated in the age of the typewriter.” Simon Garfield states this in his book Just My Type: A Book About Fonts. The fact that one can scroll through the pull-down typeface menu on any word processor and choose any style, made us much more familiar with typefaces and this led to us having favourite ones and ridiculing others. Helvetica for instance, is generally perceived as a typeface loved by hipsters and lazy designers. It even has its own documentary. Comic sans, another well known typeface, is an often ridiculed because of its informal character. It is said that it should never be used unless you write for children under age 10 and some people want banned all together. Typefaces, in other words, evoke some strong feelings. Garfields book is aimed at a general audience and not specifically at an academic audience and was well received, showing that there is an interest in typography among the general public. There has been some scientific research on how different typefaces shape our experience of reading too and it has become a commonplace in the design and communications field that different typefaces have different connotations and therefore have some kind of power. In this essay the proclaimed power of typefaces is explored by using the example of a recently developed typeface, Dyslexie. This is a typeface that should help people with a reading disorder read faster and with less errors. First, the main features of a typeface will be given. After that, a closer look will be taken at the Dyslexie typeface. Its main features will be discussed and research about the Dyslexie typeface will be examined to, in the end, make clear what the power of Dyslexie is. Show less
Throughout history, the design and layout of the writing support, as well as the appearance of written characters have almost always been limited by various factors. For example, the scarcity and,... Show moreThroughout history, the design and layout of the writing support, as well as the appearance of written characters have almost always been limited by various factors. For example, the scarcity and, consequently, the huge costs of parchment (and later paper for the first couple of centuries after its invention) made it economically nonsensical to use exclusively very large writing or typography. Production methods of the writing tools and the technological abilities at the disposal of the producers further limited the appearance of writing. The tool for writing on clay tablets, the triangular stylus, made it difficult to draw curves or round drawings in clay which resulted in wedge-like impressions in cuneiform writing. These limitations eventually led to standardization, just as the idea of using movable type for printing with Gutenberg’s press did. The appearance of writing was soon charged with semantic meaning that could for instance demarcate Latin from the vernacular or the prestigious text from the mass-market product. Nowadays, however, many e-reading devices or internet browsers enable the reader to choose a font. In my paper, I will summarize some of the historical developments, especially in the transitional phases of the book, and argue that with the almost unlimited abilities that the digital age has to offer, the representation of typography on e-reading devices might lose its authority because of the omnipresence of options for the reader. It remains to be seen whether this will be a vital loss for readers, writers and publishers or whether the authority of typography has been overstated and is no longer needed. In my paper, I will summarize some of the historical developments, especially in the transitional phases of the book, and argue that with the almost unlimited abilities that the digital age has to offer, the representation of typography on e-reading devices might lose its authority because of the omnipresence of options for the reader. It remains to be seen whether this will be a vital loss for readers, writers and publishers or whether the authority of typography has been overstated and is no longer needed. Show less
