May 26th, 2010 / 2:06 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Roxane Gay—
I enjoy really unique book packaging. Tank Books, in the UK, has released a line of classic works packaged in cigarette packs. As an ex-smoker, I’m all over this.
Ridiculous. What’s next? Blake Butler Pez dispenser?
I’m looking forward to Lindsey Hunter’s book of smokes, Daddy’s. It’s from Featherproof, and I think the stories are actually rolled up in cigarette shapes. http://www.featherproof.com/Mambo/
I thought of that book when I saw this and I’m looking forward to it too. I read one of the stories at AWP and it was fun to unroll the story. Interactive fiction!
Lindsay is fire
neat. but i have a hard time not seeing these kinds of things as marketing gimmicks. do they add to the overall reading experience, or is it about the book becoming more than a book and not meant to be read necessarily? i mean, i think these kinds of things are neat, but do they transcend neat? and also do they not sacrifice a certain practicality? everytime i get something in the mail that is packaged differently, i think, neat, but then it doesnt get read, or at least not read with intensity the way i usually are, because the weird packaging is too weird, then it sits on my shelf awkwardly for years. maybe i just love the book form, its practicality and simple white background and black text with words that are there. ok. heres an example, the benjamin percy story in the recent ninth letter, i opened to read and the black background and strange boxing of every paragraph was so visually overwhelming i couldnt concentrate on what i was reading so i stopped. even slight things frustrate me a little, but i can sometimes see past it, like lily hoangs latest and awesome book evolutaitony revolution has a long shape to it and it makes it difficult to open the book becuase it is thick, like it takes strength to open it and i kept just wanting the book to be normal shaped as ai read it. why was it long shpaes? does it contribute to the text? scorch atlas was similarly awesome and similarly also with the backgraound was different and grayer all the time, and i kept wanting it to just be a normal book that i can read because i like words on paper that is not in the way of itself. why are we doing these things? ok.
darby, i don’t think anyone considers these gimmicks more than what they are.
do they?
i dont know. so theres a general acknowledgment that they are just gimmicks then? i shouldnt be expecting it to be more than that?
This packaging is blatantly a gimmick. I simply find it interesting and pretty. It doesn’t make the writing any better, particularly speaking of these cigarette books. That said, I do think design can enhance a text and Scorch Atlas, in particular, is one of those books that felt even more interesting because of the design. I love seeing publishers do more than just put words on a page. Design is important–it allows you to show the reader how you want them to consume the text. I do think some books and magazines are over-designed but I always appreciate the effort.
well i cannot speak for other people but i can comment on my observations.
at awp, i ran into several iterations of the aforementioned “cigarettes” from featherproof. i found them on the ground, tables, trash cans, bathroom area, etc.
ryan bradley even smoked one.
people would read them then casually discard.
gimmick is gimmick.
i agree w/r/t SA, thats one where the design certainly contributes to the thing as art.
Ex-Smoker?
Nobody likes a quitter
design is tricky. i think there is a place for gimmick but it should be used sparingly and appropriately.
i would prefer to see it used only in limited production as a marketing tool. There would be the normal “book” book shipping to bookstores, homes, online, etc. and then a special or limited edition run of the text in gimmick form (i.e. a pack of cigarettes).
i think indie presses often go too far. yes, it is cool you are operating outside the confines of the monoliths, yes it is rad you have artistic freedom and less restrictions, but do you need to design everything different just because?
no, you don’t.
I’ve yet to read a book from featherproof that disappointed me. Marketing gimmick or not, I’m very excited for Daddy’s.
Except for that someone’s doctor.
My lungs appreciate a quitter too.
Hell yes, just bought 4 packs and I don’t smoke tobacco.
S
Didn’t you get banned from this website?
J:
What’s wrong with a discarded read? I’ve shot to death books after I have read them. Enjoyed the act and the read.
Ridiculous. What’s next? Blake Butler Pez dispenser?
I’m looking forward to Lindsey Hunter’s book of smokes, Daddy’s. It’s from Featherproof, and I think the stories are actually rolled up in cigarette shapes. http://www.featherproof.com/Mambo/
I thought of that book when I saw this and I’m looking forward to it too. I read one of the stories at AWP and it was fun to unroll the story. Interactive fiction!
Lindsay is fire
sean,
nothing i suppose. it is your object. but if you are destroying books on a regular basis then you should build a time machine and enlist in the german army.
destroying the occasional book is fun. i like sporadic immature action as enjoyment too.
that aside, i am guessing you don’t throw away/destroy the books you cherish. a gimmick is a gimmick and a gimmick book seems to be treated like what it is: consumer trash.
Well, J, that comment is totally out of bounds, but thanks for the time machine idea.
And books I have shot is because I am promoting a small press or poetry (needs promotion) or for any reason to get MORE books read, MORE books sold.
I think my track record is public record since I blog and am part of the online lit world, so I am going to ignore your “german army” comment.
Gimmick boos would include what? Scorch Atlas? House of Leaves? The 3 box flash set by McSweeny’s? The diagram box set as cards?
They aren’t gimmicks. The gimmick is that a book has to look the same way every time. It’s liek house plans or cars that run on gas. WHY?
The standard “book” book is one form. So what?
neat. but i have a hard time not seeing these kinds of things as marketing gimmicks. do they add to the overall reading experience, or is it about the book becoming more than a book and not meant to be read necessarily? i mean, i think these kinds of things are neat, but do they transcend neat? and also do they not sacrifice a certain practicality? everytime i get something in the mail that is packaged differently, i think, neat, but then it doesnt get read, or at least not read with intensity the way i usually are, because the weird packaging is too weird, then it sits on my shelf awkwardly for years. maybe i just love the book form, its practicality and simple white background and black text with words that are there. ok. heres an example, the benjamin percy story in the recent ninth letter, i opened to read and the black background and strange boxing of every paragraph was so visually overwhelming i couldnt concentrate on what i was reading so i stopped. even slight things frustrate me a little, but i can sometimes see past it, like lily hoangs latest and awesome book evolutaitony revolution has a long shape to it and it makes it difficult to open the book becuase it is thick, like it takes strength to open it and i kept just wanting the book to be normal shaped as ai read it. why was it long shpaes? does it contribute to the text? scorch atlas was similarly awesome and similarly also with the backgraound was different and grayer all the time, and i kept wanting it to just be a normal book that i can read because i like words on paper that is not in the way of itself. why are we doing these things? ok.
darby, i don’t think anyone considers these gimmicks more than what they are.
do they?
i dont know. so theres a general acknowledgment that they are just gimmicks then? i shouldnt be expecting it to be more than that?
This packaging is blatantly a gimmick. I simply find it interesting and pretty. It doesn’t make the writing any better, particularly speaking of these cigarette books. That said, I do think design can enhance a text and Scorch Atlas, in particular, is one of those books that felt even more interesting because of the design. I love seeing publishers do more than just put words on a page. Design is important–it allows you to show the reader how you want them to consume the text. I do think some books and magazines are over-designed but I always appreciate the effort.
well i cannot speak for other people but i can comment on my observations.
at awp, i ran into several iterations of the aforementioned “cigarettes” from featherproof. i found them on the ground, tables, trash cans, bathroom area, etc.
ryan bradley even smoked one.
people would read them then casually discard.
gimmick is gimmick.
i agree w/r/t SA, thats one where the design certainly contributes to the thing as art.
sean,
the german army comment was a joke? i said “IF” you are destroying books at regular interval you have an issue.
CLEARLY THIS IS A JOKE. I EVEN FOLLOWED IT UP WITH I LIKE TO DESTROY SHIT TOO.
i don’t know how to spell obvious better than that. you can keep your precious track record in your wallet. it wasn’t a fucking personal attack.
a gimmick book is like the one(s) linked in this article. a pack of cards as a book is gimmick. story rolled into a cigarette is gimmick.
i wouldn’t consider SA a gimmick. the text and the design go together. it makes sense. it is an artifact. it doesn’t require me to unlatch, unravel, unsomething to read the text.
my only gripe about SA is the design makes the text difficult to read at times (for me). but i am legally blind. my cross to bear. i am not projecting my personal desire as majority rule although it seems you are indicating the notion.
i never said a book has to look the same. i would prefer it not to AT TIMES.
what i said was the indie lit scene has a tendency to overuse the trick. i also said i have observed how OTHER people treat gimmick and it seems to not be the same as the way they treat a normal book.
i think design should be functional to the text.
why does a book have to transcend into a toaster to be a non-book book?
the calamari version of motorman was an odd size for me. at first i didn’t like how it felt in my hands. one look at the text illuminated in all that empty space and i fell in love. no gimmick, big difference.
gimmick is gimmick man. i just wish indie publishers would use it but sparsely.
so do you destroy/discard the books you cherish or not sean?
like i said, i am guessing not.
Ex-Smoker?
Nobody likes a quitter
design is tricky. i think there is a place for gimmick but it should be used sparingly and appropriately.
i would prefer to see it used only in limited production as a marketing tool. There would be the normal “book” book shipping to bookstores, homes, online, etc. and then a special or limited edition run of the text in gimmick form (i.e. a pack of cigarettes).
i think indie presses often go too far. yes, it is cool you are operating outside the confines of the monoliths, yes it is rad you have artistic freedom and less restrictions, but do you need to design everything different just because?
no, you don’t.
I’ve yet to read a book from featherproof that disappointed me. Marketing gimmick or not, I’m very excited for Daddy’s.
Except for that someone’s doctor.
My lungs appreciate a quitter too.
OK,
I thought you were being a smart-ass, but it’s not the first time an internet conversation has been mistranslated.
So, sorry. We’re cool.
Design functional to text is more and Indie idea than other. That’s why I love Indie books. And what makes this particular cigarette pack not functional?
I just bought Hem and Kafka and I think the cigarette, with all its connotations work very well.
Anyway, I’m not sure the point of your big “books u cherish” question. Any book I cherish is because of the words. The words. Not how it looks, the design, etc., though many of then have excellent design concepts and many do not.
But anyway, yes ,if you buy me $30 of new indie press books, out 2010, I will destroy any book I cherish. On film.
But only if I can buy $30 of new books.
etc
sean, i’m on the bus and can’t write much of a reply from my phone (it is really difficult for me to see the screen.
i’ll respond when i get home. we are of a similar mind i think. respond soon.
Hell yes, just bought 4 packs and I don’t smoke tobacco.
S
Didn’t you get banned from this website?
J:
What’s wrong with a discarded read? I’ve shot to death books after I have read them. Enjoyed the act and the read.
sean,
nothing i suppose. it is your object. but if you are destroying books on a regular basis then you should build a time machine and enlist in the german army.
destroying the occasional book is fun. i like sporadic immature action as enjoyment too.
that aside, i am guessing you don’t throw away/destroy the books you cherish. a gimmick is a gimmick and a gimmick book seems to be treated like what it is: consumer trash.
Well, J, that comment is totally out of bounds, but thanks for the time machine idea.
And books I have shot is because I am promoting a small press or poetry (needs promotion) or for any reason to get MORE books read, MORE books sold.
I think my track record is public record since I blog and am part of the online lit world, so I am going to ignore your “german army” comment.
Gimmick boos would include what? Scorch Atlas? House of Leaves? The 3 box flash set by McSweeny’s? The diagram box set as cards?
They aren’t gimmicks. The gimmick is that a book has to look the same way every time. It’s liek house plans or cars that run on gas. WHY?
The standard “book” book is one form. So what?
sean,
the german army comment was a joke? i said “IF” you are destroying books at regular interval you have an issue.
CLEARLY THIS IS A JOKE. I EVEN FOLLOWED IT UP WITH I LIKE TO DESTROY SHIT TOO.
i don’t know how to spell obvious better than that. you can keep your precious track record in your wallet. it wasn’t a fucking personal attack.
a gimmick book is like the one(s) linked in this article. a pack of cards as a book is gimmick. story rolled into a cigarette is gimmick.
i wouldn’t consider SA a gimmick. the text and the design go together. it makes sense. it is an artifact. it doesn’t require me to unlatch, unravel, unsomething to read the text.
my only gripe about SA is the design makes the text difficult to read at times (for me). but i am legally blind. my cross to bear. i am not projecting my personal desire as majority rule although it seems you are indicating the notion.
i never said a book has to look the same. i would prefer it not to AT TIMES.
what i said was the indie lit scene has a tendency to overuse the trick. i also said i have observed how OTHER people treat gimmick and it seems to not be the same as the way they treat a normal book.
i think design should be functional to the text.
why does a book have to transcend into a toaster to be a non-book book?
the calamari version of motorman was an odd size for me. at first i didn’t like how it felt in my hands. one look at the text illuminated in all that empty space and i fell in love. no gimmick, big difference.
gimmick is gimmick man. i just wish indie publishers would use it but sparsely.
so do you destroy/discard the books you cherish or not sean?
like i said, i am guessing not.
OK,
I thought you were being a smart-ass, but it’s not the first time an internet conversation has been mistranslated.
So, sorry. We’re cool.
Design functional to text is more and Indie idea than other. That’s why I love Indie books. And what makes this particular cigarette pack not functional?
I just bought Hem and Kafka and I think the cigarette, with all its connotations work very well.
Anyway, I’m not sure the point of your big “books u cherish” question. Any book I cherish is because of the words. The words. Not how it looks, the design, etc., though many of then have excellent design concepts and many do not.
But anyway, yes ,if you buy me $30 of new indie press books, out 2010, I will destroy any book I cherish. On film.
But only if I can buy $30 of new books.
etc
sean, i’m on the bus and can’t write much of a reply from my phone (it is really difficult for me to see the screen.
i’ll respond when i get home. we are of a similar mind i think. respond soon.
So does your heart and most of your blood vessels. As well as your bladder, larynx, pharynx, and esophagus—among others. That’s enough for a good party.
Damn, blogging from a bus. Sometimes I feel like we all live in Blade Runner.
i don’t think zach and featherproof is actually doing that, i talked to him at AWP, wish it were happening, but whatever he does i’m sure it’ll be cool
So does your heart and most of your blood vessels. As well as your bladder, larynx, pharynx, and esophagus—among others. That’s enough for a good party.
Damn, blogging from a bus. Sometimes I feel like we all live in Blade Runner.
i don’t think zach and featherproof is actually doing that, i talked to him at AWP, wish it were happening, but whatever he does i’m sure it’ll be cool