Nor do I think his article makes him elitist: these are all legitimate complaints about the Kindle. And goodness knows, anyone who claims to be anti-elitist and ALSO owns a $450+ reading device has some self-reflection to do.

But the very best thing about Baker’s article is this: I read it all the way through and totally forgot that I was reading it on my Kindle . . . the force of his prose, delivered without distraction, made up at the very least for the absence of commercial advertising on the page, and then some.

Good writing thrives no matter the medium, whether web or hard copy or e-reader. With Baker’s piece, it was EXACTLY as if I had a grouping of words, and only words, in front of my eyes for my private use. Just like a book.

I enjoyed doing the Bat Segundo Show.

And I am indeed curious about the context of the quote from his forthcoming novel. What is the “stance” you think is being expressed there? Is it a character speaking? A narrator? Is he saying anything like “podcasters are all losers” or whatever? If so, does that opinion have to be Baker’s? Is it not a novel? I’m confused.

I read your post, then read Baker, and came back and read you again.

I find your complaints inexplicable.

“I’d be willing to accept Baker’s assaults on Jeff Bezos and the authors who appeared in the Kindle promotional video if Baker wasn’t so fixated on kicking down the average Joe like this.”

I didn’t see Baker kicking down the average Joe, Bezos and the named authors aren’t hapless day laborers scraping bottom, and I don’t think his criticism is equal to an attack.

How do you equate that with your latest lament that you can’t criticize anyone and be published?

Then you complain that Baker didn’t bitch about how people making $30,000 can’t afford a Kindle or ipod Touch. People with limited incomes are excluded from owning many things. Does that mean no one should write about them? Baker was assigned to write about using the Kindle, and that’s what he did.

I can attest that Baker is a sweetheart, but there is a strain in this essay that is completely at odds with Baker’s true and genuine gift as a writer: namely, that ability to get EVERYONE excited about the quotidian and to gently suggest that the incurious are missing something without ridiculing them. I admire that quality tremendously. But Baker blew it with this essay with the cheap digs. He’s too GOOD a writer to stoop to these lows. Remnick waved the carrot here, and both men are culpable.

I thought Mr. Baker was a total sweetheart, especially to his fellow townspeople. He’s single handedly driving the economic development up there. He bought ice cream, digestive biscuits, a teapot and plenty of books from the local shopkeepers. And if he charged it to Conde Nast as a pass-through to Monsanto, all the better.

As far as the nature of his critique — Nicholson Baker has devoted his life to books and printed texts, and has certainly earned the right to say whatever he wants about the medium now.

I don’t argue with your right to dislike the New Yorker article, Ed, but as your fellow NB enthusiast I have to say I disagree. This is a very important topic, and certain things need to be said.

Personal speculation: Chuck Taylors, bound in morphological e-ink. You’ll be able to buy unique skins that make them look like leather, canvas, crocodile skin, etc. Laces? FUCK laces.

Ziplock!