Morning Coffee – 20 May 2016

26831134480_495d6739c3_hHere are seven  stories to read this morning.

  1. Bookslut was born in an era of internet freedom. Today's web has killed it (The Guardian)
  2. Do you still need paper books at home for kids? (Teleread)
  3. Epicurious is the latest publisher to crack down on ad blockers (Digiday)
  4. Going back to a mechanical keyboard turned me into a butterfingered idiot (Boing Boing)
  5. In Defence of E-books (The Oxford Student)
  6. This New Dan Brown Book Will Not Please Longtime Fans (HuffPost)
  7. Writing Interactive Fiction With Twine (Melissa Ford) (Emily Short's Interactive Storytelling)

image by amslerPIX

About Nate Hoffelder (10601 Articles)
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

2 Comments on Morning Coffee – 20 May 2016

  1. Muratcan Simsek // 20 May, 2016 at 2:03 am // Reply

    Enough about Bookslut. Of course almost no one would read a “8,000-word interview with a Nigerian author published in English for the first time”. Interviews, by their very nature, only interest readers if they are about someone they know about, or a topic they are interested in. Why would I read an interview about a guy I don’t know about, writing book I am not interested in?

    LARB is doing quite well without any clickbait.

  2. How many articles is Crispin going to write to bemoan her problems maintaining Bookslut and eulogizing it? She blames the culture of popularity created by the internet for her problems with maintaining her blog. Did it ever occur to her that without the internet and the very low cost of accessing her readership, she would never have had Bookslut at all. Is she aware how difficult it would have been to produce and distribute a serious literary journal in print with subject matter that’s likely to attract only a minuscule readership which would never have been remunerative without financial support from state grants or a rich patron?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


%d bloggers like this: