“To us, a book’s words were holy, but the paper, cloth, cardboard, glue, thread, and ink that contained them were a mere vessel, and it was no sacrilege to treat them as wantonly as desire and pragmatism dictated.” (Fandiman 38).
Each person mentioned in the essay treated the books according to the value the books meant to them. For example, Fadiman’s father read his books only once. When he finished a chapter, he knew he will not go back to it again, thus he ripped it to reduce the weight. The exact opposite example was Fadiman’s friend, Clark, who got at least two copies of every book and made sure nobody takes any of them off the shelf or lets the sun even shine on them. To me, it is perfectly fine if a cook book gets the egg yolk all over it, if botany texts get stains of dirt on every page, or if a bird guide book contains dozens of fascicles. As Fadiman, I also would not write into encyclopedias, however, I expect a guide to changing car breaks get oil stains on it. Honestly, I have seen books to be used as a drum pad, glueing weights, and rug-flatteners.
As I was reading the story of Fandiman describing courtly and carnal book lovers, I was thinking what group I would belong to. I realized that a little bit of both would apply to me, however, I would not be an extreme of either; I would not buy two exact same books to have one for reading and one for a book shelf, at the same time, I would not rip chapters to reduce the book’s weight. In this essay, the author concisely depicts two kinds of people according the way they love and treat books. She provides some examples how she relates to each group.
Hana Pasekova
Hana, what can you take from Anne Faidman's essay for our class? Why do you think I had you all read it? What advice would Anne Fadiman give to our class? good job.
ReplyDelete