Feb 2012 Jan 2012 Nov 2011 Oct 2011 Sep 2011 Apr 2011 Jan 2011 Dec 2010 Nov 2010 Oct 2010 Sep 2010 Jul 2010 Jun 2010 May 2010 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sep 2009 Jul 2009 Jun 2009 May 2009 Apr 2009 Mar 2009 Feb 2009 Jan 2009 Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sep 2008 Jul 2008 Jun 2008 May 2008 Apr 2008 Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Jan 2008 Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sep 2007 Jul 2007 Jun 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sep 2006 Jul 2006 Jun 2006 May 2006 Apr 2006 Mar 2006 Jan 2006 Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sep 2005 Jul 2005 Jun 2005 May 2005 Apr 2005 Mar 2005 Feb 2005 Jan 2005 Dec 2004 Nov 2004 Oct 2004 Sep 2004 Jul 2004 Jun 2004 May 2004 Apr 2004 Mar 2004 Feb 2004 Jan 2004 Dec 2003 Nov 2003 Oct 2003 Sep 2003 Jul 2003 Jun 2003 May 2003 Apr 2003 Mar 2003 Feb 2003 Jan 2003 Dec 2002 Nov 2002 Oct 2002

April 2006

Messages on the Screen

By Jack El-Hai

We all receive way too much e-mail. Probably like you, I get more than I can read, respond to, or efficiently file away. Since I became ASJA's president, I have to admit, my e-mail burden has increased greatly, and sadly I can no longer take pride in the proficiency with which I handle the digital avalanche.

Many of the messages that reach me, simply because I am the president, come from the ASJA Web site, where there is a form anyone can use to get my attention. As my predecessors in this position can attest, the content of these communications range from the profound to the ridiculous. Last summer, when we were embroiled in the controversy surrounding our First Amendment Committee's recommendation of reporter Judith Miller for the prestigious Conscience in Media Award, the public's interest in contacting me spiked.

You'll remember that the ASJA board voted not to give the award to Miller. Once the news of that decision went public, I heard from dozens of strangers by e-mail. Most of these messages praised the board's vote, although some imputed to us political motives that we did not possess. Many of the remaining messages accused me personally of working to spread Marxism, fascism, and a variety of other ideologies that I have yet to look up in the dictionary.

More recently, I have been receiving messages for the president from correspondents who say they are destitute writers in Egypt, the Philippines, the Ivory Coast, and a few other nations. They have so much they want to write, they declare, but they lack the financial means to buy the typewriter, or the desk, or the iPod that will help launch their literary career. Can I send them some money? At first I referred these people to our Writers Emergency Assistance Fund, but I stopped when I noticed that many of their messages are identical except for a few details.

Once in a while, though, a gem drops through the electronic transom. A message recently arrived alerting ASJA of some new features in the book sales pages of amazon.com. One such addition is called Concordance, available for certain books. It lists the hundred words that appear most frequently in a book (omitting "the," "and," etc.). Then, if you click one of those words, you'll get a list of the pages of the book containing that word, plus links to the scanned images of those pages. The writer of this e-mail pointed out that if you've written a book about, say, volcanoes, and if you click the word "volcano" in the concordance, you will get links to scans of nearly every page in the book. Viewers cannot download these images, but they can save the pages as favorites in their web browser and return to them anytime they want. The correspondent asked: "Won't this accessibility of so many scanned pages inhibit book sales?"

That's a good question. I looked at the amazon.com page for one of my own books and found that clicking the most frequently used word in the concordance led to a listing of scans of 347 pages. (I also learned, to my dismay, that I had used the word "although" in 105 pages of the book.)

Another amazon.com feature, which the bookseller presents in tandem with Concordance, is Text Stats. A display measures on a metered scale the book's readability, complexity, and other attributes. To quantify readability, for instance, amazon.com runs the text through three measuring scales: the Fog, Flesch, and Flesch-Kinkaid indexes. By all three measures, my book is "harder" to read than others. Will that make some potential buyers turn away?

Are these features worth protesting? Will they cut into book sales? And if so, why would amazon.com add features that reduce book sales? I don't know the answers. I do know, however, that amazon.com has been unresponsive in the past to ASJA's concern about the company's policy of selling used books on the same sales pages as new books.

If you know the answers, or if you don't feel discouraged from e-mailing your thoughts to me after reading this column, please get in touch.

Jack El-Hai of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is president of ASJA. E-mail the president through www.asja.org/contact.php.