SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Interesting discussion starter, I think:

The problem with science fiction is that it cares too much about the past. Or, at least, that's the argument being put forward by SF writer Ian Sales, who's growing more and more concerned about the reverence that SF fans have for "classic" SF that's possibly past its sell-by date. Ready to see some of your favorite SF authors put in their place?

Read the rest here:

http://io9.com/5040839/is-sf-too-obse...

I have to say that Ian Sales comment sounds like sour grapes to me. I love true hard scifi. Much of todays Sci Fi is tech so advanced it is little different than fantasy without the dragons (or with in some cases)

I am not disparaging fantasy I love it too.

True hard scifi IMHO should be based on science that is possible with current understand of physics. An example is Benefords time scape. Current theory allows for the possibliity of sending subatomic particles back thru time. If that could be somehow made to transmit information and communication could be established between the future and today or our recient past what would be the effect.

I look back at older SCIFI because even though much of the science is wrong it provokes thought.

I would truly like to see more hard Sci Fi like Clark and Asimov wrote.

I've only recently stretch my SF reading envelope (mainly by joining this online discussion group). I actually read Asimov's Foundation series for the first time last autumn. And most recently, I'm still perusing an anthology I mooched that was published in the early 60's.

I've been very generous with my ratings of the stories, but perhaps I should have been more critical, especially after reading Ian Sales blog post. I tend to agree with him. Especially on this statement:

"A story should be considered a classic for a number of reasons - continuing relevance, good writing, originality (in ideas and/or deployment), rigour (of world-building, of story), meaning, impact upon the genre, impact upon the reader... "

Jon,

I would have to beg to differ. IMHO a classic story is one that has an emotional impact at the time it was written.

Some stories are timeless and can continue to have an impact for generations. Others require an understanding of the thinking of the time to truly grasp.

The Babbitt by Sinclare Lewis is clearly a classic muddracker. However, full understanding and the emotional impact can only be understood in the contest of prohibition and the social events of its time.

Mosty Steinbeck novels are considered classics but they are dense and require an educated perspective of the period to have an impact for most readers.

While the technical aspects of good story writing are important they are not the heart of the story.

Is a painting good because it is technically perfect or because it provokes an emotional response.

I agree with him to a certain extent. A reader wanting to try out the genre should certainly start with something more modern, in my opinion. Robert Charles Wilson, Robert J. Sawyer, William Gibson, and Neal Stephenson would be better authors to start with. However, I'm not sure that it is really the problem he makes it out to be. I think those "classics" are for the hard core science fiction fan and not for someone new to the genre. I can't imagine recommending something like Nightfall to someone used to reading Stephen King. There are some exceptions though. I think that the Foundation trilogy holds up quite well, as well as a lot of Arthur C. Clarke.

Yes, it's the emotional response that I'm looking for most of the time. However, some science fiction doesn't lend itself to an emotional response, but does get me thinking, quite deeply and intensely.

I was reading through the comments under that article, and I like the comparison to video games - I'm a huge video game fan, and the best games of all time are NOT the ones currently on PS3 and XBox 360 with the big, shiny graphics. They're on earlier systems like the SNES and are mostly 2-D with handdrawn sprites. You can enjoy them on their own merits rather than saying, "Geez, these graphics suck compared to Halo 3."

I think focus on characters and character development is akin to sparkly 3-D graphics; they're very nice, but the simple absence of them does not make the story/game irrelevant or badly done.

As far as outdated concepts, I don't buy that it makes a book irrelevant. Look at Pride & Prejudice - that time period's view of marriage is practically obsolete in most cultures, but it's still a book you can understand and enjoy.

I must disagree about the video games. I am also a BIG gamer. I have played NES, Atari, PS2, Xbox.. you name it I own them. I personally love the more shiny graphics. I will always love Super Mario 1, and the Adventures of Link. But Halo 3 is great. Gears of War is great. As far as when you talk about getting into the characters I think those are the wrong games, maybe Oblivion is a good game to get into the characters. So I think you might just have played the wrong games. Halo 3 does not really get into character and that's true. But online play with it is amazing.

This is really going to show my age ... but oh well!

I love RPGs but I don't like the new graphic ones. Both my children have played (almost to the addiction level) WoW for the last couple of years.

I, on the other, am much more comfortable with a text-based MUD (specifically Aardwolf). Yes, text-based. Having a photographic memory is definitely a plus in that environment.

I've always preferred my imagination's ability to create my own graphics.

i think point Sales is trying to make kind of applies to everything, so i don't know what the big deal is.

i mean if you wanted to introduce someone who'd for whatever reason had never seen a movie before, would you ask them to watch a black and white silent film first?

as for video games, i'm totally for the big shiny graphics. better graphics make the game more involving, but the game is still useless without gameplay and story. as for the older games (the "best games") most of them were kind of pushing the graphics limits when they came out (except maybe tetris, but that was big on the gameboy, which really couldn't do much more graphics wise anyways)

so i guess what i interpret Sales to be saying is that if you want to introduce someone to sci-fi, don't give them old stuff, give them good stuff that's relevant now. which i also think is kind of pointless to be arguing cause i think most people i know who aren't into scifi books, are introduced to "scifi" through movies, cartoons, video games, etc.

but when he starts going on about whether its "good", that's kind of subjective isn't it?

Angie, my reference to the characters was in regards to science fiction - the comments under the linked article that agreed with the thesis seemed to point to one-dimensional characters and a lack of character development as a reason the thesis was correct. Someone on that site then brought up a comparison to video games, which is what made me suggest character-driven stories are to SF as shiny graphics are to video games. The lack of either does not make their respective mediums irrelevant or outdated (in terms of being enjoyable).

I have to agree with Jon on this one as far as defining classic lit is concerned.

If fact, I think too much has been labeled as classic simply because it was popular at the time it was written ... mostly because there wasn't anything better to compare it to when the genre was just starting to define itself. This is the primary reason Sci-Fi was pretty much discounted as 'real' literature by all of my English lit teachers ... in a phrase ... it was pure escapist trash. While that position was probably greatly exaggerated, it does have a point ... You need to have more then just an emotional reaction at the time it was first published if you are going to call it anything other then a classic example of the period. If a book is to be presented as a genre classic ... It needs to have had some significant impact on the genre if nothing else. If it is to be considered as classic lit ... It needs to utilize sound writing principles (which is not very common in any genre), including a disciplined approach to world building when needed to frame the main plot.

It is interesting that he picks on the Foundation series ... I have always thought they aged rather well.

Finally ... I can't for the life of me figure why I should read something that doesn't have some impact on me ... The reader of today. Sure ... Some literature is important because it encapsulates the characteristics (concerns, fascinations, etc.) of the society when it was written, but if I am not interested in that (iow that has no impact on me), why would I read it? Why is it important? What does it preserve?

A Classic Painting is good because it evokes an emotional response ... now and in the future. Most classical paintings were not really appreciated at the time they were created, so I am a little puzzled with that argument. Likewise ... I don't know of that many classical paintings where the skill of the artist is NOT obviously on display, so technical merit does have a significant factor in determining the classic nature of said painting.

if i remember what little art history i took, some classic paintings were regarded as "classic" because of the introduction of new techiques

so i mean some older scifi that may not be the best of writing could be still considered "classic" for the depth of world building and novelty of concepts, which is why maybe foundation may not be the best written stories but i still think of it as good scifi

also, again, trying to remember what i learned in art history class, the social, political, and historical context of many works of "classic" art is just as important as the the artistic end product (although the connection with the person experiencing the art is still paramount).

so when Sales is going on about how nightfall actually kind of sucks, well whatever, i think i was like 13 when i read it and i thought it was the coolest thing ever!)

OH Heck yeah. Most new games are shootup up and count the bodies I truly miss info come. drawing maps and making notes.

I have the old infocome games but they dont run even with emulators.

In most cases I think the uber graphics games lose the heart of the game.

There are still a few good ones. I cant wait for fallout three in october. If it stays within the formula of the past versions it will be as close as we can get to the best game of al times Crystal cavern.

the painting comparison was an analogy to art forms.

When Van Go hit the scene he broke the rules. He could paint with technical skill or reproducing a photo. That abiltiy is actually quite common.

His true masterworks ignor the "technical rules" It is the very absence of technical acurracy that so inspires and grabs the imagination.

The argument that a classic needs to meet technical requirements is the same as saying a painting must meet an arbitray requirement of technical correctness.

Ian Sales discription brings to mind the movie "Dead Poets society" The text book gave a almost mathmatical formula of how to determine the quality of a poem. the First thing Robin Williams had his class do is rip out the first chapter and throw it away.

IMHO the measure of a classic work of literature is in its ability to evoke a response. It can be emmotional it can be thought provoking and it has nothing to do with the technical correctness of the prose.

I'm sort of wandering off topic here, but I think flashy video games have lost that "heart" because of the mass-marketing of them. Since consoles these days are so expensive to design and produce, and all the profit comes from the games while consoles actually lose money with each sale (I think Nintendo is the only one of the big 3 to avoid that), it's become less of an "art" and more of an "appeal to as many people as you can" sort of deal. As the number of casual gamers increases, shoot 'em ups SELL more, so the niche genres become rare. I finally ended my subsciption to the Playstation magazine I've gotten for nearly a decade because the last year or two has provided nothing but news and reviews of shooters.

Anyways, to swing this back around closer to the topic at hand, I often wonder about the similar effects of money on the publishing world, especially on the genres such as SF. Has there has been a push by publishers to make SF novels more mainstream and thus appeal to more people and increase sales, resulting in a reduction of new "hard" SF?

Or I guess another way to ask the question is, are shifts in types of novels being written and appreciated dependent more on older ones actually becoming irrelevant, or more on market forces and the desire to sell to the greatest number of people?

Edit: I keep editing this and it seems to lose more of my meaning with every change, so if you disagree with me anywhere, do say so because it's entirely possible I actually agree with you. ;)

Van Go did not throw out all rules and ignore his skill/ability. He created new rules and/or concepts within which he could highlight his ability. I don't think you could make a valid argument that it was ONLY the fact that he ignored convention which made Van Go great. That is what you appear to be doing with writing ...

Whether or not it is Sci-Fi, Romance, Western, Mythology, etc., there are common elements in each which make them a good story. Even if you have the koolest idea in the world, if you lose control of these elements, your story will just plain suck. Calling something that is not a good story a classic is rather pointless IMHO.

I agree with your point about Van Go. He was a highly skilled artist. As I said he could paint a pic that looked like a photo.

The way he painted his master works if you will violated all conventions. He threw out the rule book and wrote his own.

It was not lack of skill or use of technique it was his form of expersion which if only analyzed for technical merit (Abitlity to reproduce exact representations of the real world within accepted conventions)they would fail. But it was these violations of convention that made them great.

A skilled writter must know how to tell a story. He must be able to reach a switch within people.

I have the technical ability to write. I know how to develop a story, make it clear, get my point across. It is technically good. But creatively, the ability to evoke emotion I don't have that.

Yes you need a minimum level of technical skill. But the creativity, the unique view, ability to evoke a response is IMHO much more important. This can't be taught it is inborn. Anyone with modest intellegence can be taught to write well technically.

I agree that if you want to start reading science fiction, it's probably best to start with the newer stuff. I wouldn't throw a Charles Stross or a China Mielville at the person though. I'd go with something a bit more comprehensible like John Scalzi or Tobias Buckell.

However, once one is sucked into the science fiction world, I think it's good to go back and look at the classics to see how the genre has progressed. What bugs the heck out of me though is that these commentators and bloggers just go back to the Fifties and Sixties. Anyone really interested in the history of science fiction really needs to go back to Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and Mary Shelley. These are the writers that created science fiction.

off topic, but i don't think video games as a whole have lost any "heart" because the graphics are flashier. even when nintendo was making mario and zelda, there was still a lot of crap out there. I personally think vids are better than they've ever been

and going back to topic, whether or not scifi is too obsessed with history (defining classic works) just seems to me kind of irrelavent cause isn't that basically what happens to any form of artistic expression? and i think not just art, but even like sports. the olympics just past and everybody's breaking world records, and then you go back to when running 100 m under 10 sec was unimaginable...do you say someone who won a gold medal way back with time longer than 10 sec wasn't an olympic champion? wasn't the fastest man alive?

But isn't that sort of the point of the article, Kai? Those olympians would pretty much suck today. Sure, what they accomplished has significance and all, but unless you are really interested in the history of the Olympics, you probably don't much care. I'm not saying this is the same for science fiction. Some of the classics would still be very good if they were released today...with a few updates I'm sure. However, IMO, there are a ton of SF "classics" that don't hold up well at all.

>>I think focus on characters and character development is akin to sparkly 3-D graphics; they're very nice, but the simple absence of them does not make the story/game irrelevant or badly done.


Have to disagree with you here. To me, the characters are the focus of the story. The science elements, the tech, are good and lend 'corroborative detail', but the story is about the guy using the tech, not the tech.

right Ben, not disagreeing with that point, just that Sales argument was something to the effect that only people interested in scifi need be interested in "classics". and the topic is "scifi TOO obsessed" with history. only point i was trying to make was that essentially its the same with everything. I mean haven't we all run into something which you are not really that passionate for, and then find someone is (say baseball). Like i've talked to people who go one for hours about homerun records, steriods, juicing the ball, corked bats, blah, blah blah, the modern game vs the old school etc. and honestly i couldn't care less, baseball makes me fall alseep (yet i can watch curling and golf)

so what i guess was if your discussing "is scifi too obssessed with "classic" works, i think maybe it's kind of just people get obsessed with anything they're passionate about (like we've even strayed into video games here, and i'm sure there's people here who really don't care for our talk about zelda vs halo)

I gotcha.

I'm not really sure what 'classic' SF is, but I think of Verne, Wells & the pulp magazines topped off by something that Campbell edited. I loved the latter - as a kid, can't say the taste lasted. My taste for many of the stories in the pulps did, though. A lot of big name writers got started there. I'm sorry they're gone.

I heard the pulps died because they were based on a publishing house that had a lot of printing sites around the country near railroad depots, making it economically feasible for them to print relatively small amounts & get them to market quickly. Then they were bought out by a larger company who closed that part of the business as not profitable enough.

Not sure of the accuracy of that, but I would think those days are back with our current technology. Unfortunately, print on demand books are still priced very high. I'd like to see something like the old pulps come back. It gave a lot of aspiring writers a good outlet with some excellent editing.

I think the question here seems to be what is a classic? What makes a classic? There are two characteristics to determine a classic in sf. The first is literary worthiness. Every genre has that to worry about, and who can assign it anyway? But sf also has science. People can classify an sf title as a classic depending on which is more important to them. Either way, though, the real test is whether or not the title stands the test of time.

Science fiction is burdened by its dependence on science and science changes daily. Under those conditions, one would think then that finding a classic science fiction story would be almost impossible. But that's not the case. And it's probably like science itself: Darwin is a classic even if his theory was incomplete. Stephen Jay Gould came along and updated him, but I daresay fewer people are acquainted with Gould's work than with Darwin's. That has to do with Darwin coming along first and being ever so much more notorious because of it. There's a lot to be said for the people with the first ideas. Same is probably true of science fiction. Whether or not golden age sf writers were right or wrong in their ideas doesn't really matter. What matters is that they introduced unusual ideas to the public.


If Asimov, Clark, and Heinlein are going to be considered classic writers as are Verne, Wells, and Shelly, we'll need more time. And argument of course.

In the end, though, I think Sales' argument seems to be that we worship these "has beens," to the detriment of writers with more modern ideas. He may have a point, but only time will tell.

>>I would think those days are back with our current technology. Unfortunately, print on demand books are still priced very high.

Print on demand unit costs are high per book, but generally the books are trade paperback, and the cover price isn't very high. The high unit cost makes it hard to give good discounts, though, which is why you won't see too many in bookstores. My publisher does most of her publishing through POD or as an e-book. For low prices you can't beat an e-book. How many of the forward-looking, sci-fi loving crowd have an e-book reader, though? Or read on their PC?

I prefer printed books, but I recently took the dive into ebooks. I have an ebook reader on my BlackBerry and I've found quite a few ebook versions of classics (not just SF) to download and peruse from Project Gutenberg - http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

If I find reading this easy and enjoyable, I may abandon traditional printed books.

I'm skeptical of "classics", generally. It seems to me that literature needs someone of Ellington's stature to state the equivalent of "If it sounds good, it is good." (Actually, someone probably has, but I'm not aware of it.)

Sue, I have to agree with the notion that the act of introduction is what makes a lot of SF "classic." Good science may be a metric of success unique to SF and science nonfiction, and good writing may be a useful metric for all literature, but originality is another metric that is heavily emphasized in SF. In a sense, "originality" is the equivalent to the dusty, old Olympic records mentioned above.

Should we judge a work by its place in history? Absolutely. Should we recommend books based on their status as classics? Only if we don't care how the recommendee feels--an approach frequently adopted by ambitious parents and high-school English teachers. All this really boils down to is: Do we read for fun or because it's good for us? It's hardly a dilemma unique to SF.

Marc, the more I look at e-book readers, the more interested I become. They look like the readers that Captain Picard used. However, I think the unit price is still too high. While there are several readers out there, it looks like the market is going to duke it out between two proprietary readers, Sony's reader and the Amazon Kindle. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm waiting for the market to settle out and the price to come down. So far, I'm leaning towards Kindle even though it's more expensive than the Sony reader. Amazon has a lot more titles available than Sony and the price per book is far less. Plus, it has a free wi-fi connection that allows you to buy and download books without connecting to your computer.

I think if they could get the price under $200.00, they'd get a lot more people hooked. It really could work like video game consoles where the manufacturers make their money on the games, not the unit.

There's been a lot of talk recently about the possible release of a couple new Kindles. I'm hoping for something a bit smaller and cheaper.

As a pretty big sf reader I dont think sf is in love with its past so much. I just think that many of the major ideas of sf grew out of ideas from early sf. I agree with those who point to classic English Literature. Dont we always look back at the great books and read them for the writing and the wit. In that way an English major is still going to read the Great Gatsby or Persuasion -- both of which books are about eras that have basically disappeared from the Earth because the writing is so good.

I think there is a body of very good sf books that any reader of sf should like to read. I dont particularly like the Foundation novels, so I cannot define what are classics, however, I think most sf readers would say that you cannot go wrong reading Heinlein's juveniles, and his other great works (Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Farnham's Freehold), Gateway by Pohl, Dune by Herbert, Niven, Niven and Pournelle, Bujold, Cherryh, Andre Norton, Simak, Farmer, Vance, have all written sf that has as much relevance today as it did in the past. Are there misteps, clearly Heinlein's later fiction is not his best -- but that is one reason to look at Goodreads -- we can steer you to the better book. That is not to say that you need to go back to reading serials from the 30's and 40s or sf with flat one dimensional characters. Nor does anyone have to read War of the Worlds or the Time Machine when you can read Enders Game or Hyperion.

If I had a reader who wanted to read sf I might want to suggest that s/he skip cyberpunk with its dark side and go back and read a few of the genre's classics to see what the reader liked --- space travel, exploration, alien encounters before thrusting somebody to Richard Morgan with his body changing cyberpunk future or Kathleen Goonan with her nanotechnology or even Vinge with his modern take on classic Space Opera. Even if the ideas espoused in a book are somewhat dated -- like the surrogate mothers in Moon is a harsh mistress -- the rest of the book is not.

A classic can also be a book that took 'the next step' or made a contribution to the style or direction of the genre.

Zelazny certainly did interesting things with his novels. While "This Immortal" & "Lord of Light" are my favorites, "Doorways in the Sand" & "Creatures of Light & Darkness" were put together in very interesting ways.

Gibson's "Neuromancer" is a perfect example of a pioneer in SF. He coined the term 'cyberspace' & started a new sub-genre.

----------
Books are handy; readable & portable. I toss one in my lunch box every day, but they're certainly losing ground. I don't have many nonfiction books listed here because they aren't published as books - it's documentation. I tend to read pieces, not the entire document. There is too much information & it changes too fast for a book to be worthwhile. (I do computers/networks for a living.)

I don't think ebook readers are going make it, though. They have proprietary formats which is too limiting. They need to expand on what they'll display & get a common format before they'll gain popularity. While the latter is possible, they can't do the former. Like an inkjet printer, their money is made on the consumables. My reader will need to display my text & PDF docs well & if it does, I probably won't buy enough new material to make them a profit.

In other words, their offering is too narrow for the price point. Now that makes them slimmer & almost gives them the portability of a book, but they're still lacking enough on that front & readability that it isn't worth it for the initial purchase price. Will the books I buy be readable in 10 years? I'm certain there will be several different devices over the next decade - do I get stuck with one vendor?

Electronic paper, ultra thin & floppy screens are close. I think the near future will have something like a hardback book with a spine that is a PC with a USB, microphone, headset jack & built-in wireless. Touch screen displays inside with a couple of pages. Unification of information/communication gadgets, not specialization, is the trend. (That's my opinion, but don't take it too seriously. I thought flopticals would push out CDs. )

With the Kindle, you can convert PDFs to Kindle format. Also, the Sony Reader works with protected EPUB files from any seller and also works with many other formats, PDF included.

As for readability, there is virtually no difference in paper and this e-paper...at least to me. I've only tried them in stores, but to me there are huge advantages to the new readers, like being able to search and enlarge text.

I think it is hard to deny that a digital format will eventually be the leader in book sales. Will this be in 10 years or 100, though?

I just purchased a Kindle...there is a special on Amazon right now to get it at $100 off with free shipping...I will let everyone know what I think of it when it arrives. I am really looking forward to it...although, my Hardback Book collection isn't...I read so much, especially in the winter and do like re-reading my favorites, this makes more sense than putting an addition on the house to keep my book collection ;o)

My concern with ebooks is libraries. I'm a huge library supporter. How is this going to mutate to work with ebooks?

There are very few books I actually purchase anymore - a few select authors that I've followed for decades. Since I have a very good memory, I also don't re-read many books.

I, too, love the library. I get 90%+ of the books I read from the library. Once ebooks become a lot more popular, it will erode the demand for libraries as we know them today. At first, we'll probably see the number of city branches shrink as they launch or expand their virtual libraries that offer up DRM ebooks. This certainly won't be all bad. It will be more convenient and save the city (and, theoretically, you) money...plus the whole "save a tree" thing.

Libraries will continue to exist. We have a lot of books that have to go somewhere. Plus, there's just something cool about hanging out at the library that hopefully won't ever go away.

Here is a peek at where libraries might be headed ... I kinda like it (some have DRM, but there is growing pressure to remove it).

http://overdrive.bpl.org/

You just need to be a Commonwealth resident to use it. Also, I believe the BPL is digitizing most, if not all, of it's exclusive collections (historical documents, etc.).

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article...

It is really quite exciting.

Kristjan, a couple of the libraries I've dealt with are doing similar things as the BPL, if not on as large a scale. Here in Louisville, KY, you can check out audio books & download them through the net. It's great since I have a 35 mile commute each way.

I guess delivery of a book isn't really on the topic of this discussion, but it can have a huge impact. The Harry Potter books are read by Jim Dale & he does a superb job. I read the books & listened to them (a long, fast road trip one time) & his delivery added a lot to the story. Other readers can ruin a story, even a favorite one.

Some books I have listened to in audio editions because I just couldn't get through them in print. "The Diary of Benjamin Franklin" was one. I wanted to read it for years, but it just put me to sleep reading it. I really enjoyed listening to it.

Other books I can't listen to. Ayn Rand uses a lot of $5 words with such precision that I have to have a dictionary handy. I have to pace the delivery, too. Sometimes I need to just stop & think about a sentence - easier in a written book.

My biggest issue with audio books is so many are edited to death. I recently bought some from Ebay & they were shortened to death. Yuck. Some books can be heavily edited - a good third of "Moby Dick" can be removed with no loss to the story, in my opinion.

My library also does the digital audio downloads and I have to admit I really like it. One thing I like about the software you can use while listening on your computer is the ability to put a "bookmark" and come easily back to it. Also, there are detailed chapter breaks when using the free software to listen to your book.

I tried a sample of Audible and maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the ones I downloaded didn't have chapter breaks. And not all software programs to listen to books allow chapter breaks. Which I don't know about y'all but I can't listen to a several hour audio book all in one sitting. Sometimes life demands I do other things like work, eat or sleep. :)

When it comes to audio, I will admit I prefer unabridged. When it's abridged I sit there, wondering what was dropped and why....

My library uses NetLibrary for their audio book downloads, which sucks because they don't support iPods. I get all mine from the library and rip them to a single file. It remembers where I left off so I don't have to worry about chapter breaks or anything like that.

I use a cd/mp3 player to listen to audio books & do so exclusively on the road. I can't listen to books any other time. I get fiddling & distracted, tuning out the book. Driving & listening to an audio book is the perfect mix for me.

My player doesn't remember anything, so I like to break books up into 5 or 10 minute segments. I also have to watch the file name length. It's kind of a pain. Maybe someday I'll join the 21st century & get a decent MP3 player. It hasn't been high on the budget or Xmas list yet, though.

I'm also not fond of Apple or other MP3 software. It's a pain - more of a pain than manually breaking up or renaming files for me, which I do with free utilities quickly. My daughter has an iPod and, while she curses the software occasionally, she gets by for the most part without a problem. Personal preference I guess.