Morning Coffee – 23 May 2017

Morning Coffee - 23 May 2017 Uncategorized Here are a few stories to read this morning.

  1. Bookstore Pop-ups Keep On Popping Up ( )
  2. The Dangers of Reading in Bed (The Atlantic)
  3. How Does an 8,000 Word Story Go Viral? (Motherboard)
  4. Online top ranking: what does Amazon Charts mean for the book industry? (The Guardian)
  5. Sex and Other Reasons Why We Ban Books for Young People (The Digital Reader)


About Nate Hoffelder (10075 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."

3 Comments on Morning Coffee – 23 May 2017

  1. Your link for no. 3 is currently the same as that for no. 2 so both go to The Atlantic

  2. The kids interrupted me repeatedly during that Atlantic article when I read it, so it makes sense to me that a lot of people wound up coming back to finish it because their lives interrupted finishing it as well. It is telling that we kept coming back to it. I didn’t blog about it, but I did wind up talking about it to my husband, because it fits so well with a long conversation we’ve been having (one of the best things about being married is the ability to start and stop a conversation on a particular topic over a period of years, without even having to bring the person up to speed on previous elements discussed) about how much North America is defined socially, politically, economically, technologically, by its persistent inadequate labor supply. The article also really struck me, in that it explained how people justify modern forms of slavery. I couldn’t quite understand how anyone would entrust their food, home, children to someone who was a slave. But the author’s explanation made it quite clear: the intergenerational nature of the relationship — not just with slaves in general, but a particular slave — created a particular kind of trust that is almost unimaginable to me.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: