I've been saddened and aggravated this week to read about the closure of Wenlock Books. Saddened because, as a life-long lover of books and bookshops, it always hurts me a little bit to see one go under, aggravated because, as is so often the case, the story is accompanied by people blaming Amazon for its closure.
Bookshops are, of course, wonderful resources, and even the chains hold a kind of magic (my avowedly digital-generation children still love a trip to Waterstone's). At their best, local independents can advise , inform and guide a life-time of discovery through books. But they, like so much else of the High St, finds itself under relentless assault from the online competitors, with their low overheads and cheerful willingness to employ people in conditions which border on serfdom. When even as lively and well-loved a community resource as Wenlock books seems to be goes under it's hard not to feel a bit helpless. It's impossible not to assume that this is just how things are. It is what it is, as the irritating phrase runs.
And I think it's that phrase which has got under my skin as regards this recurring story. That shrugging apathy in the face of the overarching themes of this internet age. The constant refrain of "they look at it in the shop and then buy it on Amazon" - as if it is Amazon that's to blame, there's nothing you can do about it.
Which is, of course, patent, nuclear weapons-grade bollocks. Of course there's something you can do about it. You can buy a fucking book. You can not use Amazon. I would venture to suggest that if you're the sort of person that goes to a shop to check something out and then goes to buy it cheaper off the internet I'd toddle off away from this blog-post now, because you don't come out of it well, you amoral, nickel-fucking, society-destroying piece of shit. I mean seriously, a couple of quids difference, that's not even one of your shit coffees in oversized mugs that you enjoy so much you bovine moron. It's less than a side of curly fries at that fucking Harvester which you think represents good value. Fuck you.
I exaggerate of course, but only slightly. Amazon fulfils a role, they wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market. I prefer not to use them for a variety of reasons (and if you're wondering what ethical problems one could have with Amazon then, well....look, sorry, I don't have time, I really don't), but if you do, then, well, that's between you and your conscience. And sometimes it is necessary for things you really can't get anywhere else. The point is that during the general run of the day to day, you have agency, you can make the choice.
"It is what it is"-ness is a pervasive and destructive world-view. It presumes that you as an individual are powerless. Bookshops go under not because Amazon exists, they do so because people choose to use Amazon rather than go to a bricks and mortar shop. Likewise, people don't get fat because Just Eat is an easy way to ping a takeaway to their door, they get fat because they choose to use it more often than is wise.
You see, I'm not reactionary, I rather like the internet, I'm using it for this, after all. There's a parallel universe where a more anti-internet version of me is using this blog-post to bewail how tech companies have enslaved us all (and demonstrating a staggering lack of self-awareness in doing so) but I don't see it that way. I enjoy the democratisation of technology, I like the way that social media can bring us together, increase and disseminate knowledge. That people mis-use social media, that lies and rumours spread through facebook or WhatsApp is not entirely the fault of the platforms, it is also, and this point seems to be missed quite a lot, the fault of the people doing it. To suggest otherwise is to abdicate responsibility. When I re-tweet something without fact checking then I'm being an idiot. This seems a fairly simple principle (there are, of course, larger and more involved arguments to be had about unconscious technological bias, and I'm certainly not exonerating facebook et al, but again, personal agency seems to be removed from the argument).
I have enormous issues with how the internet is shaping our lives, and certainly worry about its pervasiveness, but it seems to me that the fact that we, as individuals, have a say in what is happening, so often seems to be ignored. "It is what it is" essentially translates to "I don't want to think about this". But think we should, and think we must, because we can, because we have the ability to make choices, we have the ability to make the world as we would wish it to be. So, to conclude, a little less wringing of hands and a little more going and buying a damned book and before you know it the world's a nicer place.
Bookshops are, of course, wonderful resources, and even the chains hold a kind of magic (my avowedly digital-generation children still love a trip to Waterstone's). At their best, local independents can advise , inform and guide a life-time of discovery through books. But they, like so much else of the High St, finds itself under relentless assault from the online competitors, with their low overheads and cheerful willingness to employ people in conditions which border on serfdom. When even as lively and well-loved a community resource as Wenlock books seems to be goes under it's hard not to feel a bit helpless. It's impossible not to assume that this is just how things are. It is what it is, as the irritating phrase runs.
And I think it's that phrase which has got under my skin as regards this recurring story. That shrugging apathy in the face of the overarching themes of this internet age. The constant refrain of "they look at it in the shop and then buy it on Amazon" - as if it is Amazon that's to blame, there's nothing you can do about it.
Which is, of course, patent, nuclear weapons-grade bollocks. Of course there's something you can do about it. You can buy a fucking book. You can not use Amazon. I would venture to suggest that if you're the sort of person that goes to a shop to check something out and then goes to buy it cheaper off the internet I'd toddle off away from this blog-post now, because you don't come out of it well, you amoral, nickel-fucking, society-destroying piece of shit. I mean seriously, a couple of quids difference, that's not even one of your shit coffees in oversized mugs that you enjoy so much you bovine moron. It's less than a side of curly fries at that fucking Harvester which you think represents good value. Fuck you.
I exaggerate of course, but only slightly. Amazon fulfils a role, they wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market. I prefer not to use them for a variety of reasons (and if you're wondering what ethical problems one could have with Amazon then, well....look, sorry, I don't have time, I really don't), but if you do, then, well, that's between you and your conscience. And sometimes it is necessary for things you really can't get anywhere else. The point is that during the general run of the day to day, you have agency, you can make the choice.
"It is what it is"-ness is a pervasive and destructive world-view. It presumes that you as an individual are powerless. Bookshops go under not because Amazon exists, they do so because people choose to use Amazon rather than go to a bricks and mortar shop. Likewise, people don't get fat because Just Eat is an easy way to ping a takeaway to their door, they get fat because they choose to use it more often than is wise.
You see, I'm not reactionary, I rather like the internet, I'm using it for this, after all. There's a parallel universe where a more anti-internet version of me is using this blog-post to bewail how tech companies have enslaved us all (and demonstrating a staggering lack of self-awareness in doing so) but I don't see it that way. I enjoy the democratisation of technology, I like the way that social media can bring us together, increase and disseminate knowledge. That people mis-use social media, that lies and rumours spread through facebook or WhatsApp is not entirely the fault of the platforms, it is also, and this point seems to be missed quite a lot, the fault of the people doing it. To suggest otherwise is to abdicate responsibility. When I re-tweet something without fact checking then I'm being an idiot. This seems a fairly simple principle (there are, of course, larger and more involved arguments to be had about unconscious technological bias, and I'm certainly not exonerating facebook et al, but again, personal agency seems to be removed from the argument).
I have enormous issues with how the internet is shaping our lives, and certainly worry about its pervasiveness, but it seems to me that the fact that we, as individuals, have a say in what is happening, so often seems to be ignored. "It is what it is" essentially translates to "I don't want to think about this". But think we should, and think we must, because we can, because we have the ability to make choices, we have the ability to make the world as we would wish it to be. So, to conclude, a little less wringing of hands and a little more going and buying a damned book and before you know it the world's a nicer place.
Comments
Post a Comment