Thursday, February 11, 2010

Vook: You're Kidding Me, Right?

First of all, thanks for the positive vibes yesterday. I'm suffering a worse-than-usual case of the Februaries. Spring is around the corner, and it has promised me some sunshine.

If you haven't heard about the "Vook", here's a sales pitch:



My response: lame.


If you can't view it, try this link. Or this one.

At first, I thought maybe for non-fiction...the cookbooks or exercise manuals where you really want to see how to do a certain technique. Then I realized YouTube already offers the same for free. Okay...

But for fiction? Please.

A Vook ignores the best parts of print and video. Reading allows one's imagination to work, creating the look and feel of a world, characters, situations, etc. in collaboration with the author. The best movies bring together visual artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create a multimedia piece with a consistent experience. Do I really need a snippet of video to show me the "most important" part of the book? Hell no.

I do believe in new media and stretching the boundaries of storytelling. IMHO, this ain't it.

10 comments:

Jamie Eyberg said...

I guess I just fail to grasp the concept here. "A picture is worth a thousand words and here is a moving picture in the middle of these words. Think of the pages I could cut out by not writing it properly." I think it is for the unimaginative (read- lazy) readers out there.

Jeremy D Brooks said...

What the vook?

I saw a demo on some talk show once about an author (creator of CSI, maybe?) pitching his new book that came with a DVD. You'd get to a point in the story and it would suggest that you play clip #24, and it would provide you with new info that you didn't get in the story, like a cutscene with a clue as to the killer's ID. Interesting, I guess, and I'd check it out at least once, but it takes it clearly out of the category of literature, I think.

Alan W. Davidson said...

I've never heard of that before. I had the same thought as you, Aaron, when watching the video. It steals away the oportunity for the reader to use her/his imagination (didn't King say in 'On Writing' that writers should not be over-descriptive--let the reader fill in the blanks?).

As Jamie noted, it's for the lazy reader. Sadly, I wonder if the masses of society are steering us in that direction...

Andrea said...

Yet another thing I probably won't be investing in. I'll stick to my hardcovers and paperbacks.

katey said...

Wow.

Do not want.

Natalie L. Sin said...

Eww. Was reading not dynamic enough: Now I need my attention span fluffed and stroked between pages? My brain is not a flaccid porn star, Vook!

K.C. Shaw said...

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the 'vook.' It would be like trying to read while the movie made from the book is playing incessantly in the background. And I bet there are ads, too.

Sophie Playle said...

Oh dear. Maybe an early April Fools joke? *hoping*

Danielle Ferries said...

Not impressed at all. Hope you're feeling better, I think "A Case of the Februaries" would make a good story title.

Aaron Polson said...

All the "buzz" seems to be that the younger generation will love this. My students don't seem too thrilled. Granted, they aren't a "random" sample or statistically significant or anything, but...