I never skip anything outright but sometimes if i'm reading like a fantasy novel and the author takes a break from the present story to start going on and on about some kind of mythology or thousands of years of backstory my eyes kind of glaze over and most of the words don't make it all the way into my brain.

Authors are as individual as any other group of humans. Some of them love interacting with fans and some don't. Some are active on social media on a daily basis, and some can't stand it and either hire someone to deal with it for them or just ignore it entirely. I would start by looking at what kind of public contacts they put out there. Do they have a website or social media presence? Do you see them regularly engage with readers online? Do they list a public-facing email address? If you can't track any of that down these days, probably the author doesn't do a lot of direct interaction with fans, but as a last resort you can always contact their publisher or agent and ask.

I used to work for a mediocre publisher that did a lot of tv-to-book stuff, like novels written by the (fictional character) Richard Castle from the tv show Castle, etc. Those Castle books, at least the first couple, were best sellers so some people in leadership got it into their heads that this was a cash cow. But most of those kinds of projects didn't do well or never even got off the ground, At one point we were meeting with Proctor and Gamble and an ad agency that worked with them talking about creating a "novel" (and potential series!) written by a character from Old Spice commercials. Honestly the whole thing was fucking embarrassing, luckily everyone realized after the first couple proposals that this was a terrible idea and the whole thing was dropped. Unless they later went to another publisher and actually did this shit, but I'm guessing not because the "virality" of those particular commercials dried up real fast.

According to the article, this "record high" is only in the context of the ALA's data, which only goes back 20 years. Ulysses was published a little over a hundred years ago. It would be interesting to see data from earlier periods of history.

It's also worth noting that Ulysses wasn't banned in the sense of being challenged at a local library by a bunch of angry parents in the sense that things happen today. Rather, it was completely blocked from being imported into the US by the federal government. I don't know if that level of ban could or would happen today.

>No one should ever be forced to read this sort of thing.

Has this ever actually happened? Is there some danger of it happening? I know that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is occasionally taught in high schools but I don't think FW is likely to show up as required reading anywhere.

I've read quite a bit of Joyce's work including his private letters and "exposing types of people for being twats" especially in the context of books didn't really seem like something he was really into or about, in general. I'm curious how you got that impression.

Like do you really think he spent seventeen years writing a novel just to make a rather petty comment that could have just as easily been done with a pamphlet?

Wait until you get to Ulysses, he goes way further, and plays around with a lot of different styles while doing so. It starts off as a direct sequel to Portrait and then focuses on a different character after a few chapters.

and if you want a glimpse of his mind "unfiltered" check out his letters to Nora.

The quoted passage, at the time it was written, was still considered fairly vulgar and while the book was popular in its day, there was definitely a fair amount of consternation about Joyce portraying bodily functions and sexual thoughts and acts at all even in this language that seems, to modern eyes, much less direct. At the time the book was written the Victorian era had only just ended ten years ago and a lot of the social mores of that period remained in place.

I was a child, and we certainly were not able to go out to eat once a week. Later on in the late 80's, yes that became more normal, but I remember the 70's as a time of going out to eat being a rare treat, and a lot of dinners of steak-ums, fish sticks, etc. This was also a time when a lot of food became much more expensive (due in part to the gas shortage).

The post-war baby boom was primarily in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Right after WW2, hence the name, although technically it lasted until the early 60's.

There was very famously a major economic recession starting in 1973 that lasted years and affected a huge number of people. The 70's in general was absolutely not a time of prosperity, it was a time of economic hardship for much of the country and is quite famous for that downturn.

Great for you that no one you knew couldn't afford to go out to eat, but yes it was absolutely a time when a ton of people had to scrimp and save.

Sometimes when a person's name was blanked out it's to imply that they are some significant figure or aristocrat and the implication is that it would be "scandalous" if this story were known about them or associated with them. Adds to the mood.

>AI will communicate with other AI and learn faster and better than humans ever would be able it.

slow down there gpt

I tend to skip around in non-fiction books, which is something I'll never do with fiction. Like there's a great massive history of Europe by Norman Davies (it's just called "Europe") and I'm pretty sure by this point I've read the whole thing, but I didn't read it front to back, I just read different chapters and sections on different eras, cultures, and concepts when I was in the mood for that particular subject.

>Ahh, but that is the beauty of law. I'm certain I could register as an archive or library if I had a certain number of books, allowed public access, etc. With the small scale here i'd say it could be arguable.

You wouldn't have to allow public access, there are plenty of private archives. I used to work at a university library that had one. But there is definitely a difference between an archive and a random private collection of books. The issue is not the number of books nor the degree of public access but rather the question of the historical nature of those books and the methods you use to preserve them (and the methods you make others use to read them. At the archive in the library where I worked, for example, everyone had to have gloves on at all times and no one was allowed to have a pen or any other kind of ink-containing device anywhere near a book while reading it). Also you can't just like, put a book on a normal shelf and call it an archive. Books age, paper yellows and gets brittle, etc. and archives are often specifically designed to counter or slow the effects of this aging. There's a whole science to it. (and fwiw you can't just "register as a library" either. You have to go to school and get a degree in library science to become a librarian, it's not trivial and it's certainly not the same thing as just being a person who owns a bunch of books and lets others borrow them)

Also, you'd have to have set all that stuff up *in advance* of making whatever extra copies you are entitled to as an archivist. The OP didn't mention anything about doing any of that stuff and has not indicated that they are an archivist of any kind.

Again, one person downloading (or making) one copy of one book is unlikely to end up in a courtroom at all, not because of what the law says but because it's incredibly unlikely any authority figure will ever know about it, so the question of whether it's legal is purely academic anyway, but I do think it's an interesting discussion. My issue is less with the OP's actions and more with your claim about the level of "access" that one purchase entitles you to.

Fair enough.

My understanding of "archival law" is that it applies specifically to libraries and other kinds of professional archives, not just any private person who happens to own books, and thus wasn't particularly relevant to the conversation.

>*Nonprofit educational. Degrading eyesight makes a digital copy with scalable text make sense. Individual has agreed to one personal use digital copy.

But the OP didn't purchase a digital copy with scalable text, they purchased a physical copy with the text set in one specific size. No agreement between the individual and the copyright holder regarding a digital copy has taken place.

>A physical book that I will boldly assume is available in one font purchased through a proper author to retailer chain.

That is indeed a bold assumption, and raises a good point: Many books are indeed available both in a regular font *and* in a separate, larger-type edition specifically for people who are visually impaired. If you purchase a book in a regular font and then your eyes go bad, do you believe you are entitled to go to the store and grab a large-type edition for free? If not, then why would you be entitled to do the same digital version with scalable text?

Also nothing in the OP mentioned educational use. As far as their post indicates, this is purely personal and for all we know the book could just as easily be just entertainment. There is absolutely nothing in the fair use code that mentions personal archives, and I'm very curious about where you got that stuff you were talking about as far as "three copies" and "as long as it doesn't leave the premesis" none of which appears in the law. What is your source for that stuff?

Again, there is an element of "fair use" you are missing. Here is the law:

>"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

I bolded the third point because it's the one you seem to keep ignoring, the relationship between the portion used and the work as a whole. You can use a portion of a work for educational purposes or criticism, that doesn't mean you are within rights to copy the entire thing.

Note also that the specific reasons mentioned for "fair use" include education, criticism, reporting, and teaching. There is absolutely no mention of personal archival copies, nor anything related to if your eyesight gets bad.

I'm certainly open to other definitions of fair use which is why I asked where you are getting yours, but this is the law as I found it.

They definitely matter. In addition to things like font size and capitalization, the physical size and shape of a book can also be an issue, unconventionally shaped books can really fuck up a nice shelving system! Although I find this is usually more an issue with large art and photography books than fiction or non-fiction.

Back in the 90's there was a magazine called Raygun that used to be "playful" with their type and you'd constantly see shit like one small word being s t r e t c h e d out across a line, it was super irritating.

>I would argue that fair use allows for a full "blown up" copy for the sake of a purchaser's eyesight

Where exactly are you getting your definition of "fair use"? I have never seen a definition that allowed one to copy *the entire contents* of a book for any reason. Even if you are copying something for educational purposes, this is limited to a chapter or so. You do realize that schools are entirely educational and have to actually buy the books they use, right? You can't just claim "educational" and copy entire books.

"I think this would be more akin to buying a book and owning your own printing press. You are making a copy to be privately used in case the original is damaged. This is a practice going back to scribes and handwriting copies."

Scribes predate modern copyright law. In the current day, in most countries, if you copy the entire contents of a book whether you do so by hand, with a xerox machine, or digitally, you are technically violating the copyright.

If you are just making one copy in the privacy of your home for the ease of your eyesight or whatever, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will care or that you will be doing any real harm to anyone. But I was more taking issue with the idea that buying a copy of a book is the same thing as "paying for access" to the text in some greater sense, that's not really how it works, your use of the text is very limited and ultimately, it's not yours.

"You already paid for access" that's interesting to think about.

Imagine it were like 50 years ago and digital books didn't exist yet. You buy a book at a store and lose or damage it and need a new copy. Or, to keep it like the OP, your eyes got bad and now you need it a different font. Do you feel entitled to walk into a bookstore and grab a second copy for free because you already "paid for access" to the text itself?

When you buy a book the general understanding is that you are buying *one copy* of the book, not an infinite number of copies of it. The text doesn't belong to you, it still belongs to the author and publisher. What you've bought is one physical copy of that text, not the right to make other copies of it.

Now that we've made the transition to digital, and creating an infinite number of copies of a book is far easier, does this somehow mean what you've bought has changed? Did you buy one digital copy of the book, or does the price include lifelong access to as many digital copies as one might need?

I love cookbooks though I have to admit I use them in a rather utilitarian way, just going to recipes that look good and trying to make them, rather than sitting and reading through all the personal stories and such. My favorites are Jerusalem by Yotam Ottolenghi and New American Table by Marcus Samuelson. I also really enjoy some of Jamie Oliver's books, particularly those about Spain and Italy.