"One Singular Sensation," A Chorus Line

"Long Distance Winner," Buckingham Nicks

"Shaking The Tree," Peter Gabriel

Embarrassing misspelling or embarrassing ad copy playing off the product name?
 You be the judge! (Seen in an ad served on Gizmodo)

 God, another Wired article about how books are "old-fashioned" and need to become "interactive" and so forth. 

When McKenzie Wark wrote Gamer Theory—an analysis of why people enjoy playing videogames—Harvard University Press published it as a conventional hardcover. But Wark also put it online using CommentPress. The free blog theme blew the book open into a series of conversations; every paragraph could spawn its own discussion forum for readers.

Sure enough, hundreds dove in, and pretty soon Gamer Theory had sparked erudite exchanges on everything from Plato's cave to Schopenhauer's ideas on boredom. It felt as much like a rangy, excited Twitter conversation as it did a book. "It was all because we opened it up and gave readers a way to interact with each other," Wark says. "It changed the way they read the book."

I can think of few things less desirable than sitting down to read a book, and instead finding myself reading some threaded forum of cringeworthy undergrad philosophical analysis.  I don't think it's even physically possible to have an "erudite exchange" about Plato's cave.  What if my red isn't the same as your red???

While I do have my Luddite streak, I try my best to give emerging modes of communication a fair shot.  I embraced Twitter (though, truth be told, I haven't been using it so much recently).  I check my Facebook and so forth.  I've listened to an Audible book (I couldn't retain anything), and I listen regularly to podcasts. I am actively considering getting a Kindle, though I've had trouble in the past getting used to reading extended passages on screens, and I like the tactile qualities of an actual (paperback, I hate hardcovers) book.

But really, there's nothing wrong with books!  They are portable, durable, long-lasting (when printed on good paper and kept dry).  You can lend them to friends or give them away.  As mass media go, they are a pretty good value--you get hours and hours of entertainment for a fixed, generally low price. 

The crux of his argument is that more people would "engage" with books if there were tools to make this possible:

The technology is here. Book nerds are now working on XML-like markup languages that would allow for really terrific linking and mashups. Imagine a world where there's a URL for every chapter and paragraph in a book—every sentence, even. Readers could point to their favorite sections in a MySpace update or instant message or respond to an argument by copiously linking to the smartest passages in a recent best seller.

Mashups? Sigh.  Also, there is a really easy way to "point to" a paragraph or sentence of a book.  You type it in.  Or, if you want to discuss a book's plot or intent or whatever, summarize it in your own words. There is much to be said for forming a written, considered stance on a text.  Ultimately, I don't think that URLs of parts of books that people can cite by linking is furthering the discourse.  It's just a tiresome game of literary Pokemon. 

It is easily possible to have a living, social interaction with books without any new technology.  Read the New York Times Book Review or the New York Review of Books, where writers interact with each others' works (don't forget to read the letters section, which is always bristling with dissent).  Join a book club.  Buy two copies of a book and give one to a friend. 

Frankly, I think the problem with books is that people don't have as many long stretches of uninterrupted time and attention and television is an easier and more immediately satisfying medium for delivering stories and images.  The answer isn't to make them harder to navigate, less immersive, and more like work.