[evollove]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

There's obviously some deep psychology going on with keeping books.

I think deeper than merely the act of "showing off" (to one's self or others).

This has sort of occurred to me: As physical objects, they can be somewhat comforting, as if they can act as cushions or something. They don't, but maybe some us psychologically operate as if they do? Maybe it's the same part of the brain that accounts for hoarding, but if so, why only books?

It was a relief to unload 150 books at once, but I sort of tremble at the thought of not having any.

[Mortte Jousimo]

Books have never meant to me same as vinyls. There are still few I`d like to own (for example that Bulgakov´s Master & Margarita, Lord of the rings), I have also some I think I am going to keep.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Indeed. I will be selling off some records in the near future.

I donlt find my books or records burdensome. Burdensome is my wife's clothing, purses, and shoes!!!!!!!!!

Yes. Yes. This.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

I think deeper than merely the act of "showing off" (to one's self or others).

This has sort of occurred to me: As physical objects, they can be somewhat comforting, as if they can act as cushions or something. They don't, but maybe some us psychologically operate as if they do? Maybe it's the same part of the brain that accounts for hoarding, but if so, why only books?

Because books are more than just keepsakes. They're physical evidence of personal progress. When we finish a book and set it on the shelf, it's a reminder of a small goal, achieved. The fact that they correspond with times, places and people is already enough to make them valuable, but music does that as well. With books, you not only have a keepsake, you also have a little world you've conquered.

I think they're more akin to academic degrees and trophies than anything else. I do not give mine up quietly.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

Because books are more than just keepsakes. They're physical evidence of personal progress. When we finish a book and set it on the shelf, it's a reminder of a small goal, achieved. The fact that they correspond with times, places and people is already enough to make them valuable, but music does that as well. With books, you not only have a keepsake, you also have a little world you've conquered.

I think they're more akin to academic degrees and trophies than anything else. I do not give mine up quietly.

yes, exactly-- trophies-- see, i've been saying that from the start

"here's the buffalo francis macomber shot in kenya"

(but macomber was killed before he could have memories of that)

see, as middle class people we're fetishists. doesn't matter if we're being proletarized economically-- we still sanctify things as magical. so we cling not to the knowledge or sensations that books bring and the memories they leave behind, but to objects. which are bulky.

at some point we have to transcend such silly programming though. it's silly and it's inconvenient and it's ultimately... false. and when seen objectively, it's pretty ridiculous--like some general with a jacket stuffed with medals.

we're born naked, we die naked (well...), so if this didn't sound like the invitation to a weird orgy, i'd say "get naked already." i won't, but you know what i mean, right? non-attachment. shit like that. the art of losing isn't hard to master.

attachment equals suffering, so--- i'd rather practice while it's not yet a disaster.

[demonrail666]

'Trophies', 'medals', maybe, but that isn't how I relate to the books I keep. At least I don't think so. A trophy reminds you of an achievement but when I look at my favourite books on a shelf, it's more like I'm thanking them for the impact they had on me, rather than for something I'd done. I don't congratulate myself for reading Blood Brothers, I congratulate Richard Price for writing it. But why I need to physically own that book in order to do so, that's what I'm not sure about. Maybe it is a fetish object, but a fetish for what?

[Rob Instigator]

medals and trophies mean nothing ONLY to one who never won trophies or earned medals......

jus' sayin'

Books are idea containers, and the more containers you empty into your head the more thoughts you can think.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

'Trophies', 'medals', maybe, but that isn't how I relate to the books I keep.

Severian does though (or so he thinks for the moment, anyway). And so do a lot of people. Like diplomas on the wall.

I agree that's not everyone though. That hasn't been me actually, ha ha ha-- I've only used that position as a rhetorical facilitator, rather than getting lost in the complexities of those relationships. More about that below.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I don't congratulate myself for reading Blood Brothers, I congratulate Richard Price for writing it. But why I need to physically own that book in order to do so, that's what I'm not sure about. Maybe it is a fetish object, but a fetish for what?

for friendship, man. those books, those authors, are/have been our friends. so we carry them around just like some people paper their refrigerators with photos of friends and family. to cherish, to remember, to comfort, to continue some conversations in our minds.

i think it does happen especially with hermit types (hello). i often prefer characters to real people. and authors are my friends. so for example when garcía márquez finally died i felt a real sense of loss. i suppose it's like masses of people felt when michael jackson the singer died. although i suppose some did also when michael jackson the beer writer died.

and it's not just the text. it's the physical object. for example, when i think of love in the times of cholera i think of the fat paperback with the bright yellow covers that i read on a fishing boat between bouts of vomiting and brutal work.

but one can only handle so many friends.

 

for example, cortázar (whom i mentioned the other day in relation to godard) drove me bananas when i was 20, i read everything he ever wrote, even the crappy stuff. but today? he just doesn't do anything for me. i'm grateful for all the fish but i'm through with his planet. i don't know why i would pay for the space to keep his books anymore. space comes at a cost (rent/mortgage, furniture, etc).

and so instead of being just a group of friends, our collections fatten up through wishlists and cemeteries for failed or lost connections. and they become a mess and an obtrusive monument to nostalgia-- that mental disease that keeps us alienated from the present.

of course there are the professional shelves too, but those are another story. had i continued working in literature professionally (cranking out papers and attending conferences and teaching) i probably would have a number of go-to books i'd have to use for frequent consultation, just like a mechanic has his jacks and wrenches and cans of grease.

many years ago i practically lived at the library of congress because i could find *anything* there. but today? the library is everywhere. click-click-click.

[Rob Instigator]

There have been millions upon millions of books printed since 1500. Maybe, MAYBE 2% of them are digitized or available as e-books, most of those being fiction.

Same with recorded music. Without the actual LP's or books, digitization is impossible. the people who think Libraries should go all digital are fucking morons. That is like saying that in 1600 libraries should have disposed of their manuscripts or papyrus or scrolls or handwritten letters because from then on everything would be in bound printed books. Just a personal peeve of mine

[!@#$%!]

@ rob re: 1500s. i don't know that this low number is true, or that it will stay static. and most of those ancient books are obsolete anyway. e.g., after newton's theory of gravitation, kant speculated that the universe must be infinite and stars spaced out evenly in order to keep themselves from falling into each other.

beyond the history of science/antiquarian/academic aspect of that, there's little reason to be reading those theories these days, because we know that the universe is expanding, etc., and facts have replaced speculation. so there's no need for everyone to read 100% of all the ancient books-- and we still have libraries that will continue to archive objects. the digitization is to make these texts widely available to the public so there is nothing moronic about it unless you destroy the source.

oh, and when you talk about every book published you need to take into account the massive bulk of publishing that is done for things like the ever-changing field of technology. do you need a car maintenance book from the 50s? do you need a tv-antenna installer manual? do you need an A+ certification handbook from the 90s? future archaeologists might be interested, but if you repair tvs or install cable or repair computers today you need only the most recent edition.

[!@#$%!]

also if you've ever dealt with a rare book collection you'll know that greasy fingers and cough spray and other stupid little bits of human ooze are a deadly poison to antiquities-- and so access is severely limited, via special permission only, etc. -- so beyond the fact that it makes things available to all, thus reducing wear and tear and mold and rot, digitization is really vital for the preservation of knowledge once objects *inevitably* fall apart.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh, and when you talk about every book published you need to take into account the massive bulk of publishing that is done for things like the ever-changing field of technology. do you need a car maintenance book from the 50s? do you need a tv-installer manual? do you need an A+ certification handbook from the 90s? future archaeologists might be interested, but if you repair tvs or install cable or repair computers today you need only the most recent edition.

OF COURSE people do. Old cars still run, old machines still need fixing. Those documents are ephemera, and just as telling and valuable a historic reference source as any printed book. Plenty of people in developing nations are still using what to us is outdated technology, and will continue to do so.

it is very naive to think that old books are outdated information. Even if they are, they still serve as a storehouse of thought and ideas and technology from back in da day.

[Rob Instigator]

I am all for digitization of everything we can digitize, but electronic media is dependent on a functioning electrical grid and huge amounts of energy. We assume that our world will get ever more digital and electronic and away from "analog" but that is a purely self-absorbed and narrow view of a potential future.

You don;t think the people working at the Library of Alexandria thought the same thing back then? That they had amassed a storehouse of knowledge for intellectuals, scientists, and researchers to use forever? All that took to destroy was some flame.

Our electronic media is even more fragile than that.

Books have lasted hundreds of years. papyrus has lasted thousands. same with clay tablets. Those are analog, REAL things. CD's? nearly obsolete and they all degrade much faster than vinyl. .pdf files? Please print them out on good paper for as soon as the opreating systems no longer support that software they are useless.

[evollove]

Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned one reason to keep some books around: the pleasure of reading.

Just this morning, I had a wide range of entertainment options for my poo. Skimmed Despair by Nabokov.

In idle moments generally, I'm grateful I can grab a favorite, pick a random spot and be pleasured for a moment.

[Rob Instigator]

Certain things only matter to those that live a life of the mind.

As an OG nerd (learned to read by myself at age 3) I prefer a life of the mind, and my books help me keep that mind full.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Certain things only matter to those that live a life of the mind.

As an OG nerd (learned to read by myself at age 3) I prefer a life of the mind, and my books help me keep that mind full.

the life of the mind is concerned with the mind, not with hoarding junk.

walt whitman had a bigger life of the mind than most of us and he wrote this:

MY PICTURE-GALLERY.
IN a little house keep I pictures suspended, it is not a
fix'd house,
It is round, it is only a few inches from one side to the other;
Yet behold, it has room for all the shows of the world,
all memories!
Here the tableaus of life, and here the groupings of death;
Here, do you know this? this is cicerone himself,
With finger rais'd he points to the prodigal pictures.

___________

I love Leaves of Grass and I remembered that poem from having read it, not from keeping some musty paperback stuffed in a shelf unopened. And I pasted you the quote from an online edition, as it's in the public domain.

So a mind doesn't need a yellowed ream of smelly unglued booklice-eaten low-grade paper to either understand Whitman or remember Whitman or to quote him or to be alive with it.

[Rob Instigator]

but it helps

[Rob Instigator]

Walt Whitman loved books, the actual OBJECTS.

" Everyone knows Whitman as a poet and the author of one of the most studied books of American poetry, Leaves of Grass. What is less well known is that Whitman was trained as a printer and throughout his life spent time in printing shops and binderies, often setting type himself and always intimately involved in the design and production of his books. Whitman did not just write his book, he made his book, and he made it over and over again, each time producing a different material object that spoke to its readers in different ways."
http://www.whitmanarchive.org/critic...anc.00150.html

[Rob Instigator]

memory is highly fudgible and fallible. the typeset on a book stays the same whether read in 10 years or 200.

I nearly cry to myself thinking of all the oral history and song and poems and knowledge and experience that we have no clue of because the culture either had no written language, or they developed writing long after the death of their bards.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

So a mind doesn't need a yellowed ream of smelly unglued booklice-eaten low-grade paper to either understand Whitman or remember Whitman or to quote him or to be alive with it.

Methinks you do not take good care of your books.