Ah, high school English. We all survived it, and many of us writerly folks will end up teaching it at some point as well.  As someone who taught seventh and ninth grade English in the Bronx for three years,  I was particularly interested in this New York Times piece by Motoko Rich, “Students Get New Assignment: Pick Books You Like,” which chronicles the attempts of several teachers to give their students more freedom to deviate from the canon and pick books that interest them. The article explores both sides of the issue, but focuses mainly on a few teachers’ attempts to  go against curriculum and allow students to pick their own reading material in secondary English classrooms.

This approach hardly seems newsworthy. Though I am unfamiliar with the current English teaching ideology in the NYC public schools, when I was teaching, most schools encouraged teachers to let students choose their own books; class sets of books were not even available at many schools.  Students picked their own books to read during SSR, or Sustained Silent Reading, books based on their reading levels and interest, and in many classrooms no books were read outside of that time. Teachers did not discuss themes or literary devices in particular books, but instead focused on reading skills, encouraging students to respond to their chosen book in a method also of their choosing.

The advantages to this approach are obvious. In today’s diverse literary world, my bookish friends and I will only read perhaps 50-75 % of the same books throughout the course of our lives. There is simply a wider range of quality literature being published now than ever before. While there are  still “writers of the moment” with whom the well-read are encouraged to familiarize themselves, the list widens constantly. Why should we, then, limit  our students to the same 100 “great books” we are supposed to read?

In addition, many  inner-city students do not “see themselves” in the books on the typical high school  reading list, books such as “Animal Farm” or “Catcher in the Rye”; they see no (immediate) relevance or relationship to their background and personal struggles.  Many of my students were also at very different reading levels, so reading books as a class was somewhat problematic.

But while much is gained by giving students the freedom to trade “1984″ for graphic novels or “urban lit,” something is lost by allowing students to choose whatever  books they like. I discovered so many of the books I now love from class reading lists, books I may have never picked up on my own. How can high school and college students completely know what books they will and won’t like? And isn’t there something to be gained from reading a book you hate or slogging through a book that seems boring at first?

It’s also hard to imagine a literary education that does not include lively class discussions of these books.  The benefit of reading books in class (a benefit which some of us cling to by going on for advanced degrees, starting book clubs, etc.)  is the depth of understanding gained by discussing these books with your instructor and peers. Defending a book or character you loved that the rest of your class hated is an invaluable skill. High school should attempt to prepare students for these kind of discussions.

Lastly, there is the argument that these students do not necessarily see their own lives reflected in the books traditionally read in high school classrooms. But isn’t there value in learning to see  yourself in characters who, on the surface, seem nothing like you? And while there is certainly value in becoming familiar with some of the world’s “important books,” there is also no reason instructors can’t have their entire classes read books that reflect the socioeconomic makeup of their students, or allow their students to have a say in the books the class reads together. I’m sure most teachers are doing these things already anyway.

Really, though, it all depends on the teacher’s goal for her students. Is the goal to prepare them for college literature courses? Then they need to be reading books as a group.  Is the goal instead to get “non-readers” to enjoy reading at least a little? Then maybe it is okay to allow them to choose their own books. But if the goal is really to make them life-long readers, then I think a combination of the two approaches is best, thus exposing them to new books and new ways to engage with books, while also allowing them to to take control and find books they really love.

Last weekend I read a book review in the New York Times by Michiko Kakutani, the Times’ perennial taste-maker, entitled “Taking Sides in the Digital Revolution, Where Copyright is the First Casualty.” The article outlines two recent books, one called “Ripped” by Greg Kot and the other “Digital Barbarism” by Mark Helprin. Essentially Kakutani says both books, one pro and one con, present their arguments well but both fall short because they fail to adequately analyze the counterarguments. I am not here to comment much on the review itself, nor do I care to read or address either book. These books both seem as though their purpose is to convince fencesitting audiences. I do not sit on the fence when it comes to digital media distribution, either the legal kind or the sort labeled by the uninitiated as “piracy.” As an unabashed technophile, I see the future of media distribution encapsulated in what media piracy offers: all media available in high-quality formats, downloadable at fast speeds any time of day, anything you could possibly want. Think of it as a library at your fingertips, currently only available to those in the know, those who have some tech savvy, and those who are willing to cross that line into what the law, albeit a dark shade of gray, labels illegal. But very soon, I predict, this will be the way most, if not all, media will be distributed.

About five years ago I received an invitation to the private BitTorrent music site called Oink. If you’re unfamiliar with BitTorrent, let me break it down for you. You download a client software to your computer, which is able to read and parse Torrents, and connect to BitTorrent trackers hosted on websites. No actual media is hosted on these websites, they only serve as a directory to Torrent files; Torrent files are small and serve only to connect users to each other and provide an organizational map for media data. When you upload a Torrent file to one of these sites, you are registering media hosted on your own computer with the website and opening that media up to other users to download. When a Torrent originates, hosted only by the original uploader, other users attach onto the file and are called Leeches. At first the downloading is slow, capable of only going as fast as the original uploaders upload speed. But when the Torrent is completed, once another user has fully downloaded the files, these completed downloads/users join the Swarm, the people sharing a Torrent and set of files. The more people in the Swarm, the faster a Leech’s potential download. Perhaps at first you may only download at 50KB per second but as more users complete the Torrent and share, joining the Swarm, you become only limited by your own download speed. You could be downloading at 1MB per second on a normal residential internet connection (thus getting a 60MB music album in one minute), or even faster if you’re on a university or business connection. It all depends on what people colloquially call your “pipe.”

Oink, in time, became the preeminent music download site among Torrenters; it ushered in this strange new era of sharing, with an effect greater than Napster because you could get absolutely anything, in complete albums, in any format you wanted. But, like Napster, it was shut down when it became too big. Without missing a beat, however, the Torrent community had new sites up within a week (which will remain unnamed in this article), staying true to what is known as the Hydra. A hydra has many heads, and when you chop one off more will grow in its place. The Torrent community cannot be stopped; you can’t shut down all the sites. Just as the recent judgment against the founders of the Pirate Bay reveals, you can persecute the people but you can’t stop the machine. These sites don’t just contain music. All digital media can be had if you get into the right site. Books are certainly included in this, both of the e-book and audiobook variety.

I thought this was an important topic to bring up because I myself hope to one day make a living from my art. But, despite what my friends may tell you, I am not a fool. With the way the current industries operate, music and book, and with the ease at which someone can “pirate” this media, the financial models these industries purport are simply not sustainable. Just as the iPod ushered piracy into the mainstream (can anyone claim they have paid for every single mp3 on their digital music player?), e-readers like the Kindle will do the very same thing to books. Why pay $25-30 for a book when you can have the text for free? In the New York Times’ Book Review podcast from 5/15/09, they discuss book piracy and how it effects authors and the industry and such. But these people talking about it, Motoko Rich and Sam Tanenhaus, come off as luddites (though they are just journalists, so we’ll cut them some slack). They speak of transcription as a form of book piracy, as in someone will sit and type a book out that they own so that they may distribute it on the internet. This idea is small potatoes; maybe a few will do this, but how many people do you think will actually spend their time transcribing a book?

More likely, e-reader proprietary formats will be cracked (do you think Amazon’s techs are smarter than millions of internet nerds?) and distributed through various Peer-to-Peer (P2P) sharing avenues on the internet, including BitTorrent. This is already the case. At my fingertips is almost any book I could want, in PDF for text or mp3 for audiobook. Now, if you’ve read some of my articles here before you’ll know that I don’t want to ever give up the paperback. I love the feel of a book in my hands. I love reading paper. And it is my opinion that, in this regard, music and book piracy differ. But I could, one day in the not too distant future, be in the minority. Many people love the Kindle. Just like the iPod, there’s a hefty upfront cost but if you know how to get your media for free, the $300 is worth it.

What does all this add up to? The industry can’t stop it. It is a fool’s errand to fight it. We are entering a new age and if the industry wants to stay lucrative, they need to adapt. Instead of suing people who share media, they need to hire a few and come up with a new distribution model. But I don’t see the big companies surviving, ultimately; their product will become too manufactured someday soon. They play it safe, create pop stars with little substance, and try to milk every dollar they can from a wilting turnip. Artists, both musicians and writers, need to realize this and figure out their own way. The days of the giant advance and massive royalties are over. What we’re learning is that it can’t just be about the money because the money no longer exists.

Once you release your art, your media, it is gone. Anyone can have it for free. I talked to my friend Scott Masson of the band Office about the subject. “I don’t want to spend my life and career fighting something that actually allows my own music to be heard,” he said. “Better that, than folks not hearing a piece of music at all.”

Masson has found success with Office, has bounced on and off of a major label, and has ultimately found it more fulfilling and lucrative to remain independent. His latest release, Mecca, is offered for free on Office’s website. “I worked my ass off on this album too, and spent a lot of money and time crafting it.  All I wanted was to share it because I believed in the contents.”

“The companies used to be in control of the artists, and now I sort of feel the public is in control,” said Masson. “The public will make the final decision on how an artist makes their living.”

I don’t think it’s become a question of morals, like some pundits argue. I don’t think labeling media sharing as “piracy” is very accurate. It is a new model. I’m not arguing that artists shouldn’t be compensated; they most certainly should be able to make a living from their work, so long as their work has greater cultural value. But, as Masson points out, the people will decide this. Morals are out of the picture. If you offer mp3s of your favorite new album to a friend, to a family member, to a stranger, will any of them decline this offering? “No,” your upstanding friend says. “I do not accept any music for which I did not pay.” Yeah, right. It will soon be the same way with books.

I don’t have the answers for the future of commercial media, I don’t pretend to know what the new model will be. But at least I’m thinking about the question. If major companies want to stay afloat they need to harness this new power of media distribution instead of trying to squash it with their heel. Artists will need to rely on the quality of their work, rather than a PR machine pushing it. This is bad news for the people who rely on the exploitation of artists to earn a living. But for artists, I think this is a wake-up call. With the fall of intellectual property rights, the ease at which anybody can download anything they want for free, the onus is on the artists to create something truly magical and culturally significant if they want to be relevant.

From the “who didn’t see this one coming” files, the New York Times brings us some information on the hotly anticipated George W. Bush memoir, slated for a 2010 release. I had heard that it was going to be a pop-up book but I think that rumor was just political mudslinging. At any rate, the New York Times’ Motoko Rich reports that the memoir is tentatively titled “Decision Points: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Dubya” and is actually being written by Bush himself (fine print: with help from key speechwriter Christopher Michel); yes, Bush already has over 30,000 words written. True, it’s just a list of words he plans to use in the book and none of them make complete sentences, but he’s got those words down and this book thing is a go.

The theme of the book is his decision-making process; Bush plans to outline for his readers the twelve most difficult decisions he made throughout his personal and political life. Those decisions include how he handled the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, his call to Jesus, his decision to stop drinking, his response to Hurricane Katrina, his decision to start drinking again, and his decision to run for President despite being grossly underqualified; we’ve all applied to jobs we’re underqualified for, but somehow Bush’s resume made it past HR and he got the interview. He plans to tell us the keywords he used in his cover letter, show us the way he charmed the lady in HR with the weird satin floral blouse and bad perm, and how his dumb luck prevailed when he discovered the hiring manager of the Executive Branch was also an alcoholic and they conducted the interview at a local DC watering hole. This book will be epic.

To read more (but not much more), see the New York Times’ “The Decider to Become The Author.”