Fahrenheit 451

I love books. I may be in the slow readers' club, but I love books. I may also be a Web 2.0 whore-fiend, but I always prefer to read from something tangible. You would never catch me with a Kindle.

A few things have happened this week which have really riled me.


Annoyance #1:

Having moved abroad I am now making a lot more use of libraries for my reading material. I love owning books, and my academic book collecting is becoming something of a 'problem', but as I know I have to return home sometime with the same number of suitcases as I came with, I can't buy too many ... or any. I'm applying the same principle to novels, but the only problem is that my library is a University one, which means I run the risk of getting out a novel which is required reading for someone's course. Cue the annoyance.

Some might say that checking out a book by a well-known Canadian author in a Canadian university was asking for it, but really! Every page was covered in different coloured pen, pointless underlining of pretty much every word that wasn't "and" or "the". Scribbled notes down the margin about the great importance of a particular line. I gave up after about 4 pages as it was just too distracting and, frankly, upsetting.

This isn't a comment about Canadian students, it's ALL students, or at least a large percentage of them. Every book I've ever checked out of a university library - bar the most obscure publications that only I would be interested in - has been annotated to some degree. There are a few reasons why this might be:

1) the student lacks the ability to parse information and take notes (or just can't be bothered)
2) the student thinks they might be doing other students a favour (never mind that other students have different research questions and may be looking for different things, but now can't get past the inane scrawlings)
3) the student has no respect for other people's property
4) the student is clearly a twat

The defacing of a book, especially one that is not yours, upsets me. This action tells me that, whilst you are happy to use a public resource for your own gain, you are now going to ruin that enjoyment for anyone else that might want to read it after you. It's extraordinarily selfish.

There are exceptions. Required reading for a course that you have bought with your own money, and is, for example, a mass-produced Penguin copy, is fair game for your notes and underlinings. This is your own property, bought for a specific purpose (i.e. to pass English A-level) and so it makes sense to use it for the purpose for which it was acquired, but you wouldn't do it with a first edition.

I am on the fence about Joe Orton's antics. Whilst I agree that his defacing of public library books as a comment on the poor quality of most reading literature at a Leicester an Islington Public Library had an artistic point, who was he to decide what was and was not good quality? Phyllis Hambledon isn't my idea of a good read, but many people's first steps towards more meaningful literature might begin with the 'less sophisticated', or simply enjoyed for its own sake. Not all books have to be great works of art.




Anyway, this made me mad, and I had to return the book.



Annoyance #2

Everyone knows I am craft fiend, and can't get enough of trying new techniques and making new things. However, I draw the line at cutting up books. I have seen quite a few tutorials for making secret 'hidden' boxes by cutting a well into the pages of a book (this one, for example, or this one for an alternative use). This wouldn't be so bad, but the books being used are invariably old hardbacks, with character, and with a lot more life left in them. They are never new mass-produced paperbacks. To me it is criminal to destroy these books for the sake of creating something that might be a little bit useful, or pretty, but ultimately is a dreadful waste.






Annoyance #3

I was never one for watching/reading the news a great deal. 'Teh interwebs' have changed that in me, by making it all so much more accessible. I accidentally beat the bandwagon jumping on Twitter by signing up ages ago for fun and frolics on the Birmingham emergent game, and have kept it up ever since. Now it is becoming more prolific there are lots of interesting people to follow and tonnes of interesting news items cross your path. It's a miracle I ever do any work really.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand. Recently, Neil Gaiman posted a link on his Twitter feed to this article. I was utterly shocked. I realise it's primarily in the US, but ridiculousness like this has a habit of catching on in Britain, and there will be inevitable knock-on effects, even without similar legislation.

Essentially all children's books printed before 1985 can't be sold or bartered (unless considered to be collectors' items, cue a massive hike in selling price!). This is due to the lead in the printing ink (in the text, not just the illustrations). This means that public libraries and charity shops across the country are having to ditch their stock (landfill, burning, etc) as it is prohibitively expensive to have each one checked for safe levels of lead content.

I had seen that there had been outcries prior to this regarding the CPSIA legislation (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008) due to its impact on cottage-industry toy manufacturers, but nothing about books. I imagine that the worst hit will be those books that are too young to be collectors' items, but old enough to be included in the ban. I find it incredible that the terrible consequences of this law on all sectors wasn't fully appreciated as it was being passed. Fingers crossed the rally being planned actually has some impact!




Ok, rant over. I know, you get it, I love books, but these things have made me fume this week, and that is not something I do lightly.




*