Posts Tagged ‘ Reading ’

2012: A Year’s Reading in Review

Looking back at a year’s worth of reading has been depressing for the last couple of years — most of the words I read come from periodicals, not books, these days — but I do it every year anyway. Anything done twice is tradition, and this particular format was given to me by a good friend back in the days when you wrote such things down by hand, on a piece of paper, and passed it along, as opposed to just posting it on the blog.

Uphill both ways in the snow, with a baked potato to keep us warm. Obviously.

So without further ado, the Year’s Reading in Review for 2012:

How Many Books Read in 2011: 39 that I remembered to list on Goodreads, which is my primary tool for keeping track of these things. There’s always a few that get forgotten, or that are re-reads of something I already reviewed (the site won’t let you post multiple reviews of the same book, for obvious reasons), so we can safely peg it as somewhere near but not over the 50-book mark.

Fiction/Non-Fiction Ratio: Exactly one non-fiction book, although there are a number of others that I use as reference material in my work rather than reading cover-to-cover which don’t make it onto the Goodreads list.

Male/Female Authors Ratio: 14:6 male to female by author. By book it’s a bit more balanced: 21:18 books by male to female authors (a lot of Dorothy Sayers titles this year…)

Favorite Book Read: As always, there are lots that I want to give it to, but I’ll go ahead and say Freddy and Fredericka by Mark Helprin. Gore Vidal’s Lincoln and Christopher Buckley’s They Eat Puppies, Don’t They? are also right up there.

Least Favorite: Surprisingly, I managed to avoid picking up any real stinkers this year. I’ll give it to Neal Stephenson’s Reamde, which wasn’t particularly awful — just overly-long and kind of squickily misogynist in places.

Oldest Book Read: The House of the Seven Gables by Nathaniel Hawthorne (which I liked).

Newest Book Read: The Princesses of Iowa by recently-debuted (and fellow Grinnell College alumnus) Molly Backes.

Longest Book Title:  The Hero’s Guide to Saving Your Kingdom by Christopher Healy.

Shortest Book Title: Reamde by Neal Stephenson.

How Many Re-Reads: A guilty year for re-reading — 12 of them this time around, mostly by Lois McMaster Bujold, Lloyd Alexander, and Laurence Yep. There were a couple months there where feel-good escapism was pretty much the only thing on my literary plate (and my actual plate, for that matter; I ate my share of Doritos in french onion dip this summer).

Most Books by One Author This Year: Six by Dorothy Sayers. One of my many and scandalous lovers started me on her, and I promptly read all of the ones featuring Harriet Vane, plus a few of the earlier ones.

Books in Translation: Only one this year — And Quiet Flows the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov, translated by Stephen Garry

And How Many Books Were From the Library: Less than usual, but only because many were borrowed from friends or already in my collection. I believe the only books I actually purchased this year were ones by authors I knew and wanted to support personally (and most of those were given as gifts).

As always, the editorial subtext of this list is to go support your public library — it’s books, for free. It doesn’t get much better than that!

Feel free to steal this list for your own blog or website, or just comment, kibitz, etc. in the comments section down below…

A Vanity of Reading

In college, I saved money by checking course books out of the library whenever it was possible, rather than buying the latest “critical edition” from the bookstore. (This was a lot easier in the English and History classes that made up the bulk of my education; science students get, as far as I can tell, fucked.)

There’d be occasional inconsistencies between page numbers and footnotes and the like that mildly irritated some of  my professors, but for the most part they were sympathetic to the “I can’t actually afford to buy nineteen ‘critical edition’ novels at $25 a pop this semester” argument. Bless their hearts.

As a result, I tend to associate the dry-and-dusty literature of American history with equally dry-and-dusty volumes, preferably ones in tough, plain-colored library bindings with the little white-stamped titles on the spine. And this has led to a peculiar vanity: that shamelessly misrepresented copy of The House of the Seven Gables I blogged about last week has been an unexpectedly unsettling thing to read in public.

For those that can’t be bothered to click through, the book looks like this:

And it reads like this:

There were curtains to Phoebe’s bed; a dark, antique canopy, and ponderous festoons of a stuff which had been rich, and even magnificent, in its time; but which now brooded over the girl like a cloud, making a night in that one corner, while elsewhere it was beginning to be day. The morning light, however, soon stole into the aperture at the foot of the bed, betwixt those faded curtains. Finding the new guest there,–with a bloom on her cheeks like the morning’s own, and a gentle stir of departing slumber in her limbs, as when an early breeze moves the foliage, –the dawn kissed her brow. It was the caress which a dewy maiden–such as the Dawn is, immortally–gives to her sleeping sister, partly from the impulse of irresistible fondness, and partly as a pretty hint that it is time now to unclose her eyes.

We discussed the incongruities in detail last week. At the time, however, I hadn’t assigned much personal significance to it beyond amusing blog fodder.

Turns out I’m susceptible to a deep literary vanity.

I deeply disliked reading this particular edition in public. I’m too fond of myself for self-consciousness, most of the time, but something about reading a “classic” that looks like pulp fantasy bothered me far more than actually reading pulp fantasy in public (which I’ve done on many an occasion).

Pure literary snobbishness. We all want to be seen as challenging ourselves, at some level — Gosh, he’s reading Hawthorne for fun. That’s a smart boy there!

I’d have denied it, of course, if it had somehow come up in conversation. I like The House of the Seven Gables, and all the other Hawthorne I’ve read over the course of my years too; I don’t need to impress anyone to enjoy it.

But I can’t deny the impulse to stop the barista as she sneaks a glance and say “It’s an American classic, I swear!”

Nosce te ipsum. Apparently I like my classics to look like classics. Makes you wonder if there’s a market for trashy science-fiction or romance novels done up in dusty leather jackets, doesn’t it?

If Everyone on OkCupid Says They Like Books, What’s a Devoted Reader to Do?

I had to Google OkCupid to figure out the capitalization and other formatting choices in the name, which gives you a pretty good idea of my fixed domestic status.  So this is not my story.  It is a friend-of-a-friend story.  But it’s a good one.

If you’re like me, i.e. not carefully-tuned to the vicissitudes of online dating, you probably didn’t know that people on it often say they like books.  Like a lot — apparently to the point that it is completely, utterly meaningless.  People who haven’t cracked a cover since high school English class say they like books.

(To be fair, some of OkCupid’s users are only a few years out of high school English, apparently, and saying that they’re quite a few years further out than that, also apparently.  Who knew?)

Picture related.

For your genuine bibliophile this is a serious problem.  There’s really only a specific sort of person that actually likes curling up with a good book, like every night; the rest of us just enjoy the idea of being that kind of person.  Someone who read Harry Potter and thought it was pretty cool is not going to fit the bill.

So hence the friend-of-a-friend part, a woman who apparently solved this problem by trying to think of other things that people who like books tend to like and eventually settled on Scrabble.  No one actually likes Scrabble until they are into words in a very serious way, after all, or else are the kind of bespectacled weenie who wanted to be really good at chess but lacked the spacial skills and wound up memorizing a lot of words that use both X and J instead.

Fuckers.

Apparently she went on dates with five guys and wound up married to the fifth, which would be a happy ending except that she sort of hates Scrabble and has to play it all the time now.

Makes you wonder what we did before we had scientifically-balanced algorithms to tell us who we love, doesn’t it?  Thoughts and tales of finding your own true love, through fate or information-technology-chicanery, please!

Reading is Hard!

It’s time for me to admit something I never did throughout my school years:  sometimes I have trouble reading.

Not understanding text or comprehending literary devices, mind you.  God, that English degree had better be good for something!  It’s sure useless for finding a job.  No, my problems are logistic.

Settling in with a good book is something of an engineering feat in our household.  Neither O Best Beloved nor I have an engineering degree (or one in interior design), so we’ve accidentally stacked the deck against ourselves…consider:

  • We share a one-bedroom apartment.  Reading options are basically limited to the large living room or the bedroom.
  • In a flight of reckless fancy we painted the large living room a lovely but light-devouring turquoise.
  • The bedroom was engineered with outlets on only two walls, one of them the wall with the bizarrely-placed windows that you can’t put a bed up against.
  • Our bed, therefore, is wedged in a corner between my dresser and the wall, with no outlet nearer than the wall directly across from it.
  • O Best Beloved and I are basically incapable of walking on a flat plane in good shoes, so extension cords stretched across public spaces is just disaster.
  • The living room can be lit with lamps but also contains two furry, heat-seeking limpet mines that will attach themselves to any stationary lap that presents itself.

Add all this up and you have one hell of a delicate operation.  “Settling in with a good book” now involves lining up the cup of tea (essential), the kleenex (also essential most of the time, in our plauge-ridden lives), the book, the bookmarks, the cell phone for inevitable interruptions, and possibly a snack of some kind on the coffee table in an accessible-yet-reasonably-cat-proof cluster, with the tallest and solidest items buttressing the smaller, tippy ones.

On the plus side, proper preparations and a couple of clingy cats gives you an excuse to avoid work for hours.  “But Sweetie, the cats will be sad if I get up!”

So that is why I have trouble reading.  Do you ever struggle with reading?  Don’t be afraid to admit it — we all have our little handicaps.

NYC Library Offers Reduced Fines in Exchange for Time Spent Reading

So the New York Public Library has come up with a way to coax heavily-fined readers back in:  reducing fines in exchange for time spent reading.

There’s a lot to unpack from that idea, so I’m just going to bullet-point a couple thoughts:

  • The first obvious reaction is that this, at least on the surface, is a pretty cool idea.  I don’t know how endemic the problem of potential library-users avoiding the system because they owe it money is, but what offenders there are would clearly be people willing to read books.  This seems like a good appeal to them.

"They've got a name for people like you, H. I. That name is 'recidivism.'"

  • Where this gets odd is that the program is run through a third-party (and presumably for-profit) website, SummerReading.org.  No idea how that tie-in happened or what the specifics of the deal are.
  • Participants can hold materials as long as they like when they are “reading down” their fines, without accruing more fines — making it tempting to run up a 25-cent fine for the first time ever, check out a hotly-demanded bestseller, and be able to finish it at leisure instead of two weeks.  Also seems like a good way for students to save on buying textbooks that they need for the whole season, as long as the library has a copy.
  • If this works, is it going to be another compelling argument for the “let’s run our government services as businesses” camp?  Because this is a very retail-world sort of “special,” with the same focus on getting people in the door and encouraging repeat customers.
  • But at the end of the day, it’s about encouraging people to read.  That’s a good thing, from a writer’s selfish point of view, right?

Alternatively, I could be over-analyzing.  Take a look at the website and let me know your thoughts!

From “The New Yorker,” Vindication on the Greeting Cards Thing

I’m going to betray how far behind on my reading I am and quote Rebecca Mead’s article from the February 14 & February 21 issue of The New Yorker here:

I was the final speaker, and my subject was a quotation attributed to George Eliot that I had recently been coming across:  ‘It is never too late to be what you might have been.’  The first time I saw the phrase was on a refrigerator magnet, where it was set in sans-serif type on an aquamarine starburst background — design choices that seemed evocative more of the New Age than the Victorian age.  After hunting around, I discovered the quotation in other contexts.  Marianne Williamson, the best-selling author of spiritual books, included it in ‘The Gift of Change:  Spiritual Guidance for a Radically New Life.’  Tom Peters, the best-selling author of ‘In Search of Excellence,’ cited it on his Web site.  It appeared on many personal blogs, and seemed particularly popular among middle-aged women.  One author, BJ Gallagher, had even taken the quote as a book title.  ‘You only go around once in this life, so why not live a life you love?’ Gallagher wrote.  ‘You were put on this earth to be the best YOU that you can be.  If you don’t do it, nobody else can.’

…[but] I discovered on re-reading her novels; it is nowhere to be found in Eliot’s fiction.  Nor is it a paraphrase of a sentiment that registers in her work…Scholars haven’t turned up the quotation either…William Baker, of Northern Illinois University, who edits the journal George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies, told me he believed that the quotation had been misattributed to Eliot by a greeting-card company, and had subsequently been disseminated into popular culture.

The emphasis is mine.  Regular readers will know that I occasionally berate greeting-card companies for getting the material wrong (or just tastelessly-misapplied), so it of course warmed my heart to see further evidence in the pages of The New Yorker.  The author of the article goes on to interview the woman who took Eliot’s non-quote for the title of her book, whose response to the confusion was refreshingly honest and altogether a reasonable explanation for these sorts of mistake:

The possibility that George Eliot hadn’t actually said the words did not diminish their resonance.  ‘We tend to like wisdom when it comes from famous people,’ Gallagher said.  ‘But even if it was just George Eliot’s next-door neighbor, who was a seamstress, it’s still valid.’

From the mouths of…self-help book writers, I guess.  Misquotation as an alternative to the “-Anonymous” attribution?  Academic honesty says “no,” but I can’t help being enchanted with the idea of quotes by “- [Famous Name] or Perhaps Her Neighbor Who Was a Seamstress”

Five Blockbuster Genres (That Absolutely No One Writes Anymore)

If you spend any time around writers at all, you’ve got to know the term “genre fiction.”  In the modern parlance it pretty much  means science-fiction, fantasy, romance, or any other subgroup that would rather go by “genre” than the more pejorative (and generally accurate) “pop” or “pulp” labels.  But the practice, if not the term, goes back as far as the written word.  Earlier generations had their own sparkly-vampire-novel phenomena…most of which have since been almost entirely forgotten outside of English lit curricula.  Hopeful news for the Twilight-haters, right?  Here are a few of yesteryear’s blockbusters:

THE COLONIAL ADVENTURE

The Gist:  A man or group of men from England or America, or more rarely non-Anglophone European countries, travel in a colonial territory.  Both the native inhabitants and the environment get in their way as they pursue some objective, either for personal profit or, more commonly, for patriotic good and the prevention of disaster.

The Blockbuster Years:  The boom in colonial exploration novels peaked some time after the actual colonial exploration had started to go stale, with the 1880s and 1890s really defining the genre.  British imperialism didn’t last a whole lot longer itself; the novels were fairly passe by the time Kipling was winning the Nobel Prize in literature, and a new generation of writers got started on post-colonial and even violently anti-colonial novels as early as the end of the First World War.

Why No One Writes Them Anymore:  It turns out that Queen Victoria might actually have been worse than Hitler, if a little more hands-off.  Even well-meaning authors in the genre wrote really, really horrible things — things you know they went to hell for and they didn’t even know it was coming, the poor bastards.  But don’t worry.  Stories of crossing dangerous peaks and jungles to bang dark-skinned beauties and massacre villages were too good to give up, so they’ve been cagily shuffled into the realm of fantasy, where the minorities don’t get a lobby group.

THE SCHOOLBOY STORY

The Gist:  A young boy comes of age in the company of other young boys and their aging Masters.  Pranks are perpetrated, scrubs are hazed, and everyone eventually learns to be a good upstanding chap.

The Blockbuster Years:  About the same time America was tearing itself apart in the Civil War, the Brits were devouring stories about rugby scrums like you or I chow down on cold pizza for breakfast.  For a popular genre the school-story was remarkably long-lived, enjoying great popularity in serialized and complete publications on up through the turn of the century.  The First World War finally did the schoolboy story in, largely by killing off the vast majority of school-age boys in Great Britain.

Why No One Writes Them Anymore:  Schools in England integrated genders in the 20th century, which made a lot of the traditional scenarios impossible, inappropriate, or both.  Various real-life horror stories about hazings gone out of hand made glorifying the older-boys-abuse-younger-boys relationship dicey, and a slew of mid-20th century literary critics decided that a lot of the classic boy’s school stories were secretly really, really gay.  Perhaps the shirtless rugby games tipped them off?

THE SLAVE NARRATIVE

The Gist:  A slave is auctioned in a horrible scene, usually with the family being forcibly broken up.  He or she experiences all the horrors of plantation life and usually makes several escape attempts, suffering punishments for failed ones.  Most narratives include an explanation of where the slave acquired the education to write a first-hand account, usually with lavish credit given to a white, abolitionist editor and friend.

The Blockbuster Years:  Antebellum America both generated and consumed the majority of slave narratives, though some of the more successful ones made their way across the Atlantic as well.  They went on being published after the Civil War, and were taken and recorded in large numbers as a WPA project during the Great Depression, but their sparkly-vampire heights of popularity came in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s.

Why No One Writes Them Anymore:  While the subject matter is touchy, there are actually quite a few successful modern novels about antebellum slavery.  The reason we don’t see piles and piles of slave narratives, other than that the subject matter isn’t of as immediate interest as it was when we were about to fight a war over it, is that it required less willing suspension of disbelief in 1850 to convince yourself that a real slave wrote these real words, really (as long as a white person helped him/her).  These days it’s a stretch for the old imagination, so most authors avoid the “factual” first-person narrative.

THE CAPTIVITY NARRATIVE

The Gist:  Decent white folks get captured by indecent, savage, non-whites!  Some sort of interaction or cultural exchange takes place — usually the whites get a better sense of how to live in harmony with their strange new land, and the savages get Jesus.  Either everyone goes home happy or there’s a massacre.  Sometimes there’s a massacre, after which all of the non-massacred people go home happy.

The Blockbuster Years:  People in late 18th-century America couldn’t get enough of these.  The stories taught such a great moral lesson that even women were allowed to write them, accounting for a massive publishing spree leading up to the turn of the century.  The passion then dropped off in favor of very slightly less offensive interpretations of the wise savage and the generous white man, which we’ve already lambasted on this blog.

Why No One Writes Them Anymore:  Primarily because they’re painfully offensive, although the genre has shown some staying power in odd ways.  Anna and the King of Siam, 1944, was practically a captivity narrative…and arguably, so was Avatar. But like the colonial adventure novels, the genre has mostly yielded its popularity to fantasy, where entire races can be unambiguously savage without ruffling feathers (unless they happen to be avian races, I suppose).

THE GOTHIC OCCULT

The Gist:  Supernatural things happen in a remote and foreboding place.  This is almost always the result of some kind of pact with the devil, though the main character may be either an innocent victim of the supernatural or its actual agent (and occasionally, Faust-like, both).  Transgressions of deep taboos are used to provoke the emotions — blasphemy, rape, incest, and murder tend to occur in various combinations and permutations until the Devil finally claims his due.

The Blockbuster Years:  The original gothic occult novels mostly came from the last decade of the 18th century, when they were the titillating must-read for every young lady.  They resurged in popularity briefly after the (appropriately posthumous) publication of Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey, whose heroine reads Gothic novels obsessively, and various authors have co-opted the label since, but the heyday of the classic Gothic occult novel ended around 1800.

Why No One Writes Them Anymore:  Most modern readers find Northanger Abbey a bit of a dry read.  Given that it’s a light-hearted parody of an older and denser style, it’s no surprise that the true Gothic, in all its moody and florid prose, has been watered down into oblivion.  It’s also been a while since young female readers have been thrown into great emotional distress by descriptions of desecrated altars and murderous monks — and if they wanted to shock themselves with sexual deviancy, there’s 4chan.

So readers take heart, next time someone’s going on about “genre fiction” like no one ever thought of themselves as a “genre” writer before.  People have been doing this scholck since the printing press was invented — actually, they’ve been doing it since before, if we get into genres like the 3rd and 4th century “calendars” of hagiographies, or the Greek epics.  But that’s a post for another, sparkly day…

On the Dangers of Googling Furniture

Do you have a loved one, a spouse; a special friend in your life?  Are they, too, an avid reader?  If you do and they are, you already know where this post is going, as the weather turns cool and the blankets come out:  snuggling up with a book and a loved one is about as cozy as juggling scrap metal on horseback.  If the horse is made out of ice.

I don’t say this to malign O Best Beloved, who is a warm and cozy and loving individual.  So are my cats, for that matter.  But most furniture just isn’t designed with the elbow-room that reading requires in mind.  What begins as an adoring pile of limbs and joints (which sounds kind of like an early Anglo-Saxon gift basket when you write it out) quickly turns into a series of aches, changes in position to relieve aches, and quietly-nursed grudges about changes in position that left one party more comfortable than the other.  Soon a U. N. Special Commission is asking Bill Clinton to come mediate between the feuding states.

But just as I was dreading the snuggling season my page-a-day desktop calendar featured something called a “tête-à-tête chair.”  (Yes, my desk calendar occasional features antique furniture, and yes, O Best Beloved is really a woman.)  For those of you that aren’t familiar, tête-à-tête chairs were a typical Victorian solution to the problem where people who sat on the same normal couch might ocassionally brush ankles or something equally salacious, and they look something like this:

Now imagine my surprise when I Googled “tête-à-tête chair,” just to see how much one of these would set me back (almost anything seems a small price to pay for that down-home, cozy feeling of reading side-by-side sans elbows in the kidney) and one of the first results was this:

It’s come up a time or two before, but O.B.B. really loves flamingos.  Really really loves ‘em.  I count four at a casual glance around the living room, but that’s only because she’s drinking her tea out a big mug this morning instead of one of the little flamingo cups (we still made it in the flamingo teapot, though).  So I really don’t see how I’m getting out of this one without buying the appropriately-named “flamenco chair.”

Any suggestions on snuggling and reading comfortably before this thing sets me back a couple hundred?

Six Times You Could Be Reading (And Probably Aren’t)

Books!

We love ‘em.  At least I hope everyone reading this blog loves ‘em, because I will surely be bothering you to read at least one at some point.  Not for a while, though, don’t worry.  Anyway.  Books!  Writers should read ‘em, as anyone who’s ever even vaguely looked into the career has heard a thousand times already.  Keeps you exposed to fresh ideas, different styles, examples of what works and what doesn’t work, yadda yadda yadda.

The only problem is that reading takes time. (The main problem, anyway.  A kitten that hates books and tries to murder them with claws is also a problem.  I have lots of problems.)  Time is the precious commodity you spend on writing.  There’s probably a day job or a marriage or kids or something in there, too, so the schedule can start to look pretty full pretty quickly.  But who can give up reading?  Bleary-eyed but triumphant, I have finished a list of six excellent ways to sneak reading back into your life without losing your mind or more than a few hours of sleep:

  • Take Public Transit. Commuting sucks and is the worst thing you could ever do with your life including swallowing live bees for money.  But public transit isn’t really a commute at all!  It’s “Sustained Silent Reading,” or whatever your primary school called “the best hour of the school day always” — just you and your book.  And it’s all for work. They can’t take it away from you.  Don’t let them.  Make up environmentally-appropriate reasons to justify bussing it even after they offer you the company car.  And be sure to cover your books with a cut-up brown paper bag, because the crazies on the bus have an opinion about everything.
  • Read at Meals. I am told that some children get picked on for doing this, but you’re an adult!  Fuck ‘em.  If you get a lunch hour, bury your  nose during it.  (I was over six feet tall by seventh grade and may be underestimating how bad the teasing was for smaller humans, but seriously — adults now.)  Breakfast is even more permissible, since no one wants to talk to you at that hour of the morning anyway.  Even my book-hating cat won’t fuck with me when I’m that surly.
  • Top the Toilet Tank…with a good book!  Or bring one in, either way.  I worked at a Boy Scout camp throughout my misspent youth, and one of my fellow counselors finished the entirety of Anna Karenina without ever moving it out of the toilet stall.  Your diet is hopefully a little lower in fiber than ours was, but you get the idea.  Those minutes on the toilet add up to a lot of wasted life if you don’t have a book in there with you.  And you don’t really want your mind on what you’re doing anyway.  As an added bonus, those blank pages in the back can be a last-ditch salvation when you use a public hole without checking for TP first.
  • Be a Good Employee and Never Ever Read on Your Shift Even if There Is No One Else There and It Could Not Possibly Matter. Come on, guys.  My boss reads this thing.  But if you ever get stuck manning a tollbooth on an underused exit ramp or something, you could consider sneaking a few pages in at work.
  • Storytime before Bed! You don’t need small children for this one.  In fact, it’s even better without small children, because you can read much more interesting books.  Reading aloud with a friend or partner is a lot slower than reading to yourself, but it lets you effectively double-bill your time:  you’re getting “hard-working writer” credit for continuing to read other material and you’re getting “loving spouse” credit for doing a shared activity.  And while honesty compels me to admit that O Best Beloved and I mostly do read books meant for children for our read-alouds, I’m sure there are couples out there that could read more advanced literature…or even something spicy to set the mood before the lights go out, perhaps?  I leave it to you.
  • Read Yourself to Sleep. If you don’t have someone to do read-aloud with or they go to bed before you do, you can still get a bit of reading in after you’re done with your exhausting day’s work.  A wind-down book after writing for hours helps quiet my brain and knock me out — usually.  This can be a double-edged sword, since once in a while you’re reading something so good that dawn’s rosy fingers escape your notice entirely and are replaced by mid-morning’s sucker punch.

Where are you sneaking your reading in?  Inquiring minds want to know…right after they get done with their evening wind-down reading and the inevitably short hours of sleep that follow.  See you on the Comments page!

Getting Attached to Specific Editions of Books

As a progressive-minded sort of writer, I tend to view private collectors of rare editions as people that just missed the point somewhere — a first edition of, say, Lolita is only valuable because so many people have realized the worth of Nabokov’s words, which appear unchanged in the cheapest and most recent editions.  Having an older copy is kind of cool (particularly in less recent works than Lolita), but the inherent worth of the thing is still in the content.  The exceptions are works in different translations or works that underwent significant changes from one publication to the next, which does happen, but otherwise it just seems to me like missing the forest for the trees.

Right?

Well no, not always, that’s the problem.  I pulled a book off my shelf to help me think about this post:  Patricia C. Wrede’s Dealing with Dragons, which was probably the first book without pictures that I read.  I have the first edition (I would have to, to keep that timeframe), with the Trina Schart Hyman illustration wrapping around the front and back covers.  Dragons have looked like that in my mind ever since.

I have a hard time understanding other versions as being the same book.  Academically, I know the content is unchanged, but the Trina Schart Hyman illustration and the particular formatting of the edition — the little curlicues after the “In which…” chapter titles, the large sariff font; the spacing for the couplets when someone recites a spell — seem inherent to the work.  I even like the illustration on the newest edition’s cover, but it’s hard to resist picking it up as “a new Patricia C. Wrede.”

Similarly, I will never read The Hobbit without hearing it in my head as Nicol Williamson’s reading:  a recording that was only released once, for cassette tape and vinyl, by Argus Records in 1974.  My parents owned the records, and so I still think of Tolkien’s goblins as having thick Russian accents (this was the Cold War, remember).

What these examples should teach us as writers is that the words aren’t everything, though they are surely what embed books so deeply in readers’ hearts that they come to love every line of the drawing on the cover.  Or I may be the only crazy one out there that falls in love with specific editions, and you’re welcome to tell me so — but beyond the value of a first edition or a rare autographed copy, are books really interchangeable, perhaps even with electronic text?  Or are there battered old favorites that you can never conceive of replacing with the latest version?

Perhaps the man who still sleeps with a teddy bear is not qualified to speak on this subject.  I will leave it to the comments, and to you!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 803 other followers