Category: Q & A

Without exception, physical copies of books, longterm, will be a premium product for wealthier readers… The creation, distribution, and stocking costs are simply too high compared to digital books (both audio and "print-replacement" formats).

To address Jason's points:

• There was a time when it was unthinkable that the majority of the middle class could own a computer, TV, radio, etc… Prices come down over time to produce the technology, and this should be even more rapid for e-Books, which use a "razors and blades" business model.
• It's not a tactile loss, but an exchange. There is nothing proven to be inherently beneficial to childhood development about the "feel of paper". That said, there are numerous studies that show that exposing children to a variety of textures/materials dramatically speeds development of certain spatial coordination and dexterity skills. Still, even removing books entirely from the equation, it's likely that conscientious parents could still provide a wide variety of tactile experiences via toys/games/clothing. As for the "eating a kindle" argument, I'd say it's likely that child-specific e-Readers and tablets are likely to appear within the next 5 years – ruggedized units meant to be safely placed in mouths, and even charged without risk of harming the child reader.
• eBook sharing is inherently easier than physical book sharing. The difficulty you're really talking about is more of a licensing and royalties issue – and especially in the case of shorter works meant to be read repeatedly, I think childrens' books will lead the way to share-friendly licensing models… Can you imagine sharing a favorite eBook with another parent, or a whole PTA group, that could be read 1-3 times for free… And THEN needed to be purchased to read again? I can already picture how impossible it would be to resist that click to buy button with a crying two year old at bedtime. Other possibilities would be shared licensing, where each progressive "buyer" passing the book via word of mouth reduces the price to everyone else who bought the book… Getting an affiliate cut from each sale… adhoc library functionality between connected devices – readable on any single device at a time (unless paid for again)… Lots of possibilities, that all fit short-form content better than an adult novel that is typically read once and tossed/passed on.

In summary, I see the opposition to digital publishing centered around resolvable technical issues more than anything else… And we haven't even started to break the ice on innovations that would increase/encourage reading made possible by these devices – enabling a constantly-travelling parent to record audio for a story and "read to their child" even while away from home, for one simple example.

But will print publishing ever truly disappear completely? It's highly unlikely within our lifetimes. But again, it may become cost prohibitive for most people long before then. The real key questions going forward will be making the all-digital playing field more level with regards to fair use and copyright.

Will children's books remain in print or are they likely to transition to online availability only?

To me this is two different questions – which produces the least feces, and which is most absorbed.

There are various real-life situations in which reducing fecal output is a necessity. In those situations, a diet that induces extreme constipation will, in the most literal sense, "produce the least feces", for a while, at least (potentially days up to a week or more). Banana Fried Rice, anyone?

The latter case, diets in which foods are most absorbed, are really much more likely to be "diets in which most of your food is water"… Things like watermelon, or celery (remove the strings first). Though there are some standouts in the "real foods" category – rare red meat, eggs, and goat's milk are all highly nutritive and add little to your "southbound mass". Raw, as opposed to cooked corn is also said to be highly digestible, though I refuse to believe it based on local outputs during the season. Certain starches, like potatoes (peeled), also have some potential to approach a high absorption ratio, though a lot of it depends on the means of preparation. Oh yes, and blending just about anything down to liquid form will help, you know, a LOT (though really you're just trading the door for the window, so to speak).

I'm hesitant to work up anything approaching a full diet plan, though careful study of the Atkins and South Beach diets should get you about 2/3s of the way there… Then just work to balance what they see as the "gainers" with those foods that are hard to absorb. And, you know, don't do it!

There's a great reason your body wants to push waste through you on a regular basis, and when gamed for long periods, colo-rectal health issues may arise. I'm not a doctor(*), but with the exception of avoiding embarrassment during an imminent anal porn shoot, there are very few – if any – good reasons to use fecal reduction as a goal in one's diet.

What diet produces the least feces?

0:everything-but-the-last-slice is the ratio that works out best for me.

Pizza should be consumed only with root beer, ideally in a restaurant with wood laminate tables, ancient odorless red pepper shakers relfecting the multicolored light of low-hanging stained glass lamps. Background music provided by a constantly-swinging kitchen door and the cacophony of the pizza making processes within, in concert with an old Galaga or Turbo Ms. Pacman machine humming and blooping in the background.

What is the best beer to pizza ratio?

I can pretty much guarantee that this product would have a hard time gaining any kind of mass appeal outside the US market:

What types of food do Americans eat that people from other parts of the world find disgusting?