Can anyone please tell me why I need the endlessly hyped Second Life when I have Pat Conroy?
This past afternoon I revisited the household of the Great Santini and peered through the windows at the sailboats bobbing in the river outside. I was there in a way that no VR simulation could take me, regardless of the enthusiasm of the SL cultists.
I can see some wonderful uses for Second Life—I’ll keep my mind open—but as a reader fond of traditional fiction, I find myself more and more appalled at SL as just another high-tech time sink. Tonight I had to upgrade my software yet again, and my password was lost in the process.
New VR, old-fashioned tech hell
On-screen instructions say I should contact tech support, but should I bother? I’d rather catch up on my book reading and on RSS feeds relating to books and e-books. I’ve got enough media in my life, thank you very much, and millions of other people would probably feel the same way.
In fact, a recent poll suggest that porn isn’t parents’ biggest problem with TV and the Internet. No, it’s the time that the tech-based entertainment devours.
“Some 57 percent of 1,138 U.S. parents surveyed were either very concerned or strongly concerned about children spending too much of their time with different media outlets,” Reuters says in a summary of a poll commissioned by Common Sense Media. “By comparison, about 45 percent of parents said they were as concerned about their kids engaging in sex or using alcohol.”
No reason for public libraries to worsen the problem
In the wake of findings like this, should public libraries plan to splurge millions in tax money to reduce the number of hours that children spend with parents? Have SL boosters in the library world really thought this through sufficiently? And how about all the constructive questions that Rochelle Hartman, an ALA councilor, has raised?
Tell me, SL fans. Is this expensive service really what the schools and libraries need when basic digital and educational divides persist? Compared to alternatives, will SL encourage more traditional literacy and sustained thought? And how about SL’s effect on The Long Tail about which so many e-bookers are fond?
SL as a threat to the Long Tail
Couldn’t SL-style services harm the e-book Long Tail in two ways? First, might they not steal people’s money and time away from e-text, especially from non-brand names? Second, couldn’t virtual worlds result in the creation of even more dreck than we have today? The less time people spend reading, the worse their own books will be. VR surfing steals time from text. E-book originals and POD works as a group are bad enough; we don’t need VR to drive down standards even more.
I also wonder about the cost of small publishers having to struggle with a Second Life presence. The Web can eat up enough hours and dollars. I’d love for publishers to be able to spend more on authors and editors and less on tech. While that’s a dream, it’s a much-cherished fantasy.
Granted, Macmillan and others are experimenting with book-selling efforts within SL. Still, I wonder what is so awesome about flipping the pages of a virtual book—I’d rather just click on a sample chapter on the Web, perhaps with videos or audios to accompany it.
SL vs. You Tube: Why I prefer the latter
No Lud here. While much of You Tube is derivative, just reproductions of commercial media, I believe that it at least provides an opportunity to post audios and videos from Real Life (disclosure: I’m a very small Google shareholder). SL is different, essentially a retreat into fantasy. Damn it, I don’t want to squander my time amid avatars and landscapes that together look like one big San Diego. I’d rather spend my Real Life hours with my wife, my e-book time with Pat Conroy or Charles Dickens, and my Web time with articulate TeleBlog participants like Branko Collin, Garson Poole, Robert Nagle, Pond, newcomers like Suw, and, certainly, Jon Noring, even if he and I disagree over SL.
While SL might be wonderful for certain specialized educational and library needs and while I can see its potential for corporate training and planning and certain kinds of marketing—the reasons I’m keeping my mind open—I hate the thought of SL becoming the next Web. It may very well happen, but I won’t like it. SL, when I’ve visited at the insistence of the Kool-Aid drinkers, has not been fun for me; I don’t especially enjoy moving my avatar around; I feel like the proverbial politician on the rubber chicken circuit—forced to be in a place that, given my druthers, I’d rather avoid. I’m just grateful I’m not quadriplegic. E-books are friends of motion- and vision-impaired, while SL could well be the enemy in many cases.
Although SL could be integrated with e-books—I’m all in favor of such experimentation—I am still concerned over all VR-based interactivity overwhelming the carefully assembled thoughts of the authors and the text-based feedback of readers. I don’t want to have to wander through SL or an equivalent to enjoy a book. I’m even grouchy about predictions that today’s youth will avoid old-fashioned books that don’t have MySpace Web links; but at least that’s not quite in the same league of distraction as SL.
No, I won’t blame the messengers. But isn’t it possible that through good parenting and mentoring of children, people should work to get the young excited about old-fashioned books in both p- and e-forms—instead of being complacent about the present mess? Better that society’s dollars go for in-person and We-based mentoring projects than a youthful version of SL, even with mentors. Web-based mentoring would be far more cost-effective, and the in-person kind, when possible, won’t hurt, either.
Instead of investing in Second Life activities to try to grow the demand for books, publishers should work much more closely with the best marketers of all—schools and libraries—while making clear that books should not be neglected in favor of mere “information literacy.” I love the Web. But it’s not a Conroy replacement; nor is SL.
On a more positive note…
Compared to SL, I’m far more enthusiastic about a Web-related effort that Robert Nagle has in the works, something that will reflect the creativity and passion of people on the Texas plains and beyond. Robert can tell you more when he’s ready.
[…] David Rothman (The e-book guy) has some harsh words about Second Life. "[S]hould public libraries plan to splurge millions in tax money to reduce the number of hours that children spend with parents? Have SL boosters in the library world really thought this through sufficiently? And how about all the constructive questions that Rochelle Hartman, an ALA councilor, has raised? Tell me, SL fans. Is this expensive service really what the schools and libraries need when basic digital and educational divides persist? Compared to alternatives, will it encourage more traditional literacy and sustained thought? And how about SL’s effect on The Long Tail about which so many e-bookers are fond?" […]
Hi David,
Interesting comments. As a publisher, I have a combined optimism and fear when it comes to new ‘next great things.’ It’s so easy to get caught up in the hype, spend what resources we have developing a presence, and then find out that it really wasn’t. On the other hand, when things catch on, there can be major rewards for early players.
On Second Life, I’m holding an open mind. I suspect that some 3-D metaphor (perhaps with VR goggles) will become the next generation of the web. On the other hand, don’t get me talking about VRML (virtual reality markup language) a former next great thing that was going to offer 3-D worlds.
Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com
P.S., as a parent, I do worry that my son has adopted technology to the extent that he essentially no longer reads. The post-literate society is a very real possibility. While it’s intriguing writing SF about the post-literate society, it’s scary thinking about what it will mean in terms of politics, conversation, or productivity.
I have to disagree with some of the points David has raised.
I believe that 3-D virtual reality, both online and offline, will become an important part in the future of how people interact with digital content of all kinds.
Some specific points:
David focuses on 3-D virtual reality as some sort of game for children, but assuredly it is not. It is a powerful way for all to interact with content. That 3-D virtual reality has been integral with many computer games does not mean it will always be restricted to games.
For example, the vast majority of people in Second Life are adults who use it for social interaction and fun in a “non-game” sense. This is very telling…
Second Life may not survive in the future as we know it today. It is a particular commercial implementation of online 3-D virtual reality. Nevertheless, I consider SL to be a presage of the future, whatever that future will end up being.
Certainly today’s implementations of 3-D virtual reality, like Second Life, are still buggy and somewhat hardware-limited. We expect this in any new disruptive technology (at least I consider this disruptive technology.) But as time goes on, and as the algorithms improve, along with the hardware, the problems we see today will become less of an issue.
I have heard rumors that Google is working on their own 3-D virtual reality system, and it would not surprise me if others are also doing the same. Why? Because of the huge commercial potential (see the next point.) We are talking many billions of dollars in potential.
I see a future where people, when they visit a web site such as to do online shopping, gathering information, or simple recreation, can enter as avatars in a 3-D virtual reality space like we see in Second Life. The owners of the web site can create a world of their own (which can vary from a simple room or store, to an entire island or continent!)
It is clear this has huge commercial and non-commercial benefits, and this is one reason why I believe it will become ubiquitous (when is hard to say, though.)
For example, when people go to a real life local store to buy something, they can interact with both the store employees and with other customers who happen to be there at the same time. This more personal interaction is a definite benefit over the impersonal 2-D interaction with web sites in use today.
In addition, a lot of real world items which are the focal point of the web site (both commercial and non-commercial) can be showcased much better in a 3-D virtual reality environment. Examples in the commercial sector include real estate, cars, boats, clothes, etc., etc. In book publishing, it could be a re-creation of the locale in a novel.
I believe I am only touching the tip of the iceberg of possibilites.
It is futile to say what commercial publishers should do when it comes to limiting themselves for some perceived social good (and in this case I disagree with David that there’s some immense danger in web-oriented 3-D virtual reality that we must avoid it for the “good of our children.”)
Trade and commercial book publishers are commercial entities, and will go with the flow, taking advantage of the benefits 3-D virtual realities will give them. This is in the DNA of any commercial organization. The only way to constrain this is through government regulation.
Now, as a matter of public policy for non-commercial entities such as K-12 education, then obviously we each have the right to express our opinions of the way things ought to be and try to influence educational policy. In this case, I obviously diverge from David, and see that, even for education, online 3-D virtual reality can play a positive role, including to become a part (how I’m not certain) of the book reading experience. I do not fear it.
I appreciate David bringing up these points even if we disagree with each other on some of them, since we need to be aware that online 3-D virtual reality may become a big thing in the future of the Internet. Discussing its impact on both commercial and educational publishing, and thus with e-books, is important. And let’s not forget digital libraries, either.
Thanks to Rob and Jon for their thoughtful replies, and especially to Jon for taking my remarks in the right way.
Because of my time crunch, I won’t address all the points raised by R&J, but let me reiterate the main one–that services such as SL take away hours that children could spend with parents and with books (both p and e).
Total media use over the long run has just been growing and growing, and I’d like to see more hours, not fewer, devoted to long texts of the kind that encourage imagination and sustained thought.
With a novel, you get to know the characters and get inside their heads, and the more books you read, the better a writer you become.
You also may be more likely to be a book BUYER. That should be of no small interest to publishers such Macmillan, unless, of course, it wants to leave books for VR.
*********
“I obviously diverge from David, and see that, even for education, online 3-D virtual reality can play a positive role, including to become a part (how I’m not certain) of the book reading experience.”
I can think of hyperlinked text forums–and videos and audios in some cases–as a more effective ways for people to interact.
Remember, too, that I’m in favor of librarians and educators experimenting with SL. I just think it’s been overdone.
Usual IMHO disclaimer.
Thanks,
David
David wrote, in part:
There are three issues associated with this that I hope are addressed in your longer reply, David:
Is encouraging imagination and sustained thought a good thing for children?
(I believe this to indeed be a good thing as you do, but sometimes it is important to provide some sort of backing for this from experts in the field. Ultimately, it might end up being an unprovable fundamental belief .)
Can encouraging imagination and sustained thought be done in ways other than the traditional immersive (or ludic) reading of texts?
And if one is able to make a strong case for encouraging kids to learn to enjoy reading immersive-type texts (like fiction or narrative non-fiction), how is this to be accomplished?
The last point is the most important to address, since every child is different in a variety of ways. I presently hold to the view that some children of normal intelligence and abilities, no matter what is done to encourage them, will never become interested in sustained reading. I do not subscribe to the view that if just only they read some of the right stuff, they will get hooked and become voracious readers of immersive-type texts. (Sounds like the neighborhood pusher. <laugh/>)
(I also take the view that those children not interested in immersive reading no matter what is done will grow up to be happy and productive citizens in our society. It is a stretch to take the belief that anyone who has little interest in immersive reading is somehow dysfunctional.)
Even if the vast majority of kids will take an interest in immersive reading provided we give them the right impetus, will only one technique work, or will we need to employ several? And who will employ these techniques? Can it be done in our educational system? Or is it better to encourage parents and provide them with tangible guidelines? A combination?
We might find that the path to reach some kids will be through innovative applications of the digitally-delivered experiences (multimedia, games, Internet, 3-D virtual reality, etc.) that is currently sucking up a lot of our childrens’ free time.
But, Jon, books aren’t scientific experiments—they’re the way we transmit culture and values and sensibilities and many other things, and I have this quirky notion that they’re valuable in themselves.
For each child, the right book, to paraphrase an old library science concept famous even among us civilians.
If a child can’t absorb the usual e-book, then let’s think about alternatives.
What’s more, games are fine—I just don’t want to see the schools revolve around SL-style edutainment to the exclusion of text.
Also, I suspect there are better skill-focused games than SL, which is really an environment.
But first—let’s try to do something about literacy before giving up. And that means working to increase the variety of books appealing to a child’s interests and involving good teachers and other mentors. Such an undertaking should be far, far more important to libraries than SL.
It’s a question of resources. Gamers are a minority even among young people, and SL’s interface just isn’t up to snuff for many if not most others.
Thanks,
David
The problem is that simply increasing the variety of books is not going to do anything. Kids are still going to focus on digital “edutainment” whether the library has one book or one million books. This is more of a cultural issue and a library having more books (even in digital form) is not going to do anything. Adding all those books, without doing anything else, is a waste of public resources.
We really need to understand what motivates kids and then figure out how to get them to spend more time reading text. I don’t believe in overly forcing kids to read — that’s not going to improve the situation.
I still hold to my view that every child is different. Some kids naturally gravitate towards reading (no prodding necessary) and end up reading thousands of books in their life. Other kids, no matter what one does, will simply not read immersively, or only rarely — even if they enjoy it when they do. And these non-immersive readers (who may still read a lot but focus on non-immersive texts) can end up absorbing the culture in different ways and likewise be productive members of society (thus I view it elitist that immersive readers are somehow culturally/socially in more tune than the non-immersive type of readers.) Then there’s the large number of kids who fall inbetween these extremes.
Thus, we need to begin understanding what really motivates kids to read, and although variety is good (i.e., the TeleRead model), that’s not sufficient in and of itself. I see that proper use of edutainment may be necessary to reach the large middle group of kids. Whether 3-D virtual reality is one such tool that will help remains to be determined, but definitely worth experimenting with to see if it provides something (e.g. 3-D re-creation of the locale and characters in a book.)
Regarding libraries, unfortunately libraries, at least the brick and mortar kind, are slowly (some would say quickly) losing relevance in communities, and thus very few kids ever go to them any more — those kids who enjoy going are those who were simply born with a natural love of books. And again I doubt having one million books is going to get kids to visit libraries. Maybe instead of kids going to libraries (or bookstores), the libraries go to kids? (Thus moving away from brick and mortar to completely digital?)
To summarize what I’ve said so far.
If we believe that it is worthwhile in our culture to substantially increase the number of children to develop the habit of immersive-style reading, then the question becomes how we accomplish this.
This must necessarily first start with an understanding of:
The percentage of children who developed a keen, life-long interest in immersive-style reading in the last century.
Do we really see a major decline in the percentage? If so, is it a huge drop, or a slight drop? (I’ve always held the view that throughout the last two centuries, the percentage of people who are avid-for-life immersive readers, which starts in childhood, has always been fairly small — it would not surprise me if the maximum percentage never exceeded 20% and was more like 10%, but that’s just a guess.
If the percentage of readers was a lot higher at any time in our history, one explanation is that there was little else to do in one’s free time. Once other forms of entertainment came (radio, movies, tv, etc.), many quickly switched to that since they never really had The Habit™ in the first place.
Anyway, I’d like to see hard statistical data.
What really motivates some children to develop an immersive reading habit?
How can we develop programs that work without understanding the psychology behind this? And is there really anything we can do to increase the percentage past some glass ceiling? That is, is there a natural cap on this percentage due to the variety in human nature? I believe there is a cap, and in fact that cap may be less than 50%. I do not hold the view that the cap is 100% — this presupposes that all people think the same and therefore if I am an avid immersive reader then all people, if prodded the right way, will likewise develop the same avid habit as I have.
We cannot offer a solution until we understand both the potential and the motivation. Otherwise we simply will come up with “solutions” that will do little, and thus waste resources (such as programs which are literally forced on all kids without first understanding what motivates most of them.)
Having a much larger availability of immersive text materials at the finger-tips of children (via a TeleRead digital library) will no doubt help a certain percentage of children develop the habit, but that alone is only a start, and I think the gain just from increasing the number of available books will be quite small. I guess it’s a necessary start, and one I support, but we should not say that will be sufficient if our goal is a substantial increase.
So what comes next? Is there anything that the education system and libraries can do to substantially increase the percentage towards the maximum possible, or is this all futile given our culture today and the continued move towards alternative types of content? If libraries and schools, for example, banned all types of edutainment and only allowed immersive reading books, would it matter one whit? I don’t believe so — it will probably only breed more resentment towards education and libraries. That’s the last thing we want.
Thus, it seems to me that we have to explore how we can leverage other types of content to help a larger number of children develop a life-long interest in immersive reading. How we do that is open to question, of course.
“If libraries and schools, for example, banned all types of edutainment and only allowed immersive reading books, would it matter one whit?”
Heck, that’s rather far-fetched, Jon–both in terms of reality and in terms of what I’d like to see happen. I’m all in favor of SL experiments, as I keep saying over and over again. I just don’t want this to be overdone, especially when the technology isn’t ready.
What’s more, I, of all people, have never said: “Just rely on book warehouses.” I’ve been gung ho on mentoring and plain good teaching. Variety isn’t enough by itself. Nonissue in my case. I agree! I’ve even suggested the use of movies–about the books involved–to whet kids’ interest in reading.
Meanwhile as Jon J. or Brian noted, the real gamers see SL as inferior to what they already have. Such an impression also ties in with what a librarian told me.
Thanks,
David
It is true that the current SL is inferior in many respects to what gamers observe for game-playing. But that’s not the point. The point is that SL is not a game in the traditional sense.
In addition, I’ve never said SL is the end-all and be-all of 3-D virtual realities, but it has captured a significant amount of mindshare. It is an archetype of the future.
And the cost for even fairly small organizations to get involved with SL is relatively minimal, so in essence SL is an early experiment in online 3-D virtual realities, a presage of the future. The experience gained from that will be valuable as new and better online 3-D virtual reality systems emerge (if not SL). In some ways SL reminds me of AOL and Compuserve, which were replaced by a more public Internet. But the experience gained in those more closed communities carried over to the Internet (although AOL doggedly held on to the old ways far too long.)
I really do see it possible that in ten years a significant percentage of web sites will be 3-D virtual reality environments rather than the 2-D impersonal pages we see today. Note the word “possible”. Whether it happens or not depends upon a number of factors, including the investment of major companies. I’m keeping my eye on what Google plans, if the rumor I heard is true.
Well, as I’ve said, Jon, the issue isn’t just: “Will something happen?” It’s also, “Should it happen, and what should we do about it?” I’d also suggest you reconsider the cost issue. Librarians’ time isn’t free, even if they’re not billing SL, and later there could be bandwidth issues. Bottom line: Libraries should experiment with SL, but not OD on it.
Thanks,
David
As a library manager (reference) let me amend David’s bottom line: SOME libraries should experiment with SL if they have the staff, budget, energy, expertise. My staff and I are going to have a mini-retreat next month and use PLA’s service responses to help prioritize our work. Only a year ago, my staff had collection development added to their reference duties. When I came 7 months ago, I threw social networking, weeding, community outreach and other stuff to the mix. So, now we are trying to do it all and not happy with our divided attentions. We need to sift and rank our current duties, and I can tell you that VR and other online environments aren’t even on the list. It’s not a fit with our community, we don’t have the time, and we are more than happy to let others bring up and nurture this baby before we bring it to our bosom.
I agree with both David and Rochelle that, at present, experimenting with Second Life is not for everyone.
Nevertheless, I think there’s enough there, that some e-book publishers and libraries may find it in their interest to develop a presence in Second Life, if for no other reason than to get their feet wet to better understand the possible future of online 3-D virtual reality.
The important thing is that the advantages and disadvantages be properly discussed (as is being attempted here on TeleRead), so that organizations considering SL can make an informed decision based on their particular circumstances and goals.
First, let me say: if you allow your children to play on Second Life, you are not monitoring their internet usage very closely. It is full of very “adult” content. That said, my $0.02 –
Second Life held my attention for a week or so, than I was on to other things. The only caveat is that my children are growing up in a different world. They’d just as soon text-message their friends as actually call them, voice conversations are so passé. And they are obsessed with the kid’s equivalents of SL; Club Penguin and VMK (Virtual Magic Kingdom). They love navigating a 3D world online. And actually, in spite of what David believes about old fashioned books – p and e and their exclusive power to stimulate creativity – these new avenues of expression allow children to participate actively in creating story lines and becoming characters – an additional and potentially potent way to engage them in a world that is saturated by various forms of media trying to merely distract them and mold them into good consumers.
But back to the real world and the consumer economy:
By the time my children reach maturity in a few years, with babysitting money and the inevitable drug dealing cash flow 😉 … they would relish the opportunity to shop in a virtual 3D environment. They’d spend freely in a world where money is intangible. So, I do believe that SL and other similar environments could carve out a good share of revenue and writers could become engaged in this economy. Writers could make good money creating scripts for the 3D characters; poetry to woo, or pornography to do. (I mean erotica, of course – but that wouldn’t have been alliterative). People in these environments are looking for an experience with another real person at the other end – writers could help to manufacture those experiences by delivering dialogues to play by (for people who were raised on passive media). This is just one notion. The other opportunity that SL offers currently is an environment where you can find groups with specific interests to market genre titles to – right now I’d have erotica authors spend some time there if I had any under my imprints.
O.k. so that was about $0.03 – well, sue me!
Catherine Hodge
http://www.DPPstore.com
Jon Noring said “We might find that the path to reach some kids will be through innovative applications of the digitally-delivered experiences (multimedia, games, Internet, 3-D virtual reality, etc.) that is currently sucking up a lot of our childrens’ free time.”
Yes, the idea of employing games to revivify education is a hardy perennial. The latest blossoming of the idea was spotted a few months ago:”Video games can reshape education” an article in USA Today, November 2006:
Of course “Second Life” is not quite a “game” but it does have many game-like aspects.
Garson, thanks for sharing that info.
It again shows to me that if we consider it important to increase the number of children who develop the habit of immersive reading, then we need to approach this scientifically, and not assume the 19th century view of just ramming things into kids, which tends to be the default position whenever we talk about how to get children to do what we want them to do.
I’m not saying that 3-D virtual reality is the solution, but it is one possible tool in a suite of tools that could be used.
Ultimately it would be good to better understand what motivates kids to develop some habits we consider to be positive for them and for our culture. It is also good to understand if we can instill that interest in all children, or if there’s a limit based on variance in inborn human preferences. Finally, we also need to study the claim that immersive reading is the best way to teach and preserve our culture for the most children. I am not persuaded yet on this last claim since our culture, and the teaching of that culture, can be done in other ways, both by multimedia and by non-immersive types of texts (Wikipedia is one example.) To me, a multiplicity of ways is the best.
Shame George Burr Leonard’s interesting 1968 book on this subject, EDUCATION AND ECSTASY, isn’t available as an ebook, though you will find a review of it in the Creative Computing archives at http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc1/showpage.php?page=285.
The one thing that people seem to (sometimes conveniently) forget, is that text remains text. Whether it appears on paper or on the screen of an electronic device.
I would venture to say that statistically the child who spends two hours daily on IRC or in a game like “World of Warcraft” or the Community-based interactive virtual world of Second Life actually reads a fair bit more than the electronically deprived child. (By no means a punt. These are examples only)
The world is theirs. Let them shape it. We have already corrupted just about everything on this planet’s surface with our prejudices and fear.
Back to Second Life. Look at those carefully displayed shoes on shelves in the store. Each one is a work of exquisite craftsmanship. The graphics. The overlays and linking. Then the embedding of scripted programming inside a shoe to change the wearer’s gait. From anything between a crippled limp and a ramp model’s saucy sway.
Then there is the marketing. The negotiation of the virtual-world economy.
Show me any paperback novel that impacts on all these areas simultaneously. And guess what! The text on the screen uses the same alphabet as the one used on paper.
And you know why children especially need to escape? Look around. Check the media and news. They escape from the reality of conflict and crime that people of our generation and those before have dumped on them.
And despite it all, they remain positive, optimistic and above all, creative.
Anyway, I’ve had enough of this pseudo-academic crap. Time to go back to Second Life and exploit the opportunity to learn something from Tomorrow’s people.