Which book(s) would you burn?

I think burning books is a travesty... no matter what I personally consider to be heinous, vitriol, silly, folly immense or any other word for crap, I think too few people write books, and too few people read to burn even one book....

Let it all stand, and let those with eyes to see, read what they will and make their own choices.

It's all a reflection of life...

haley, they BUILD black rock city every year for the burn. yep, it is an actual city, incorporated and everything. they even have a DPW (dept of public works). Merlin works for them.

Mishka,

I didn't do it to prove I could--you could too and admit as much. I did it to see what it felt like since I had a psychosomatic aversion to doing it. There is a fine, yet subtle difference. However, the effect is the same--I burnt three books I didn't care for. I did it because I felt like doing it. And, because I wanted to know how I would feel if I voluntarily burned them.

I went through school not writing in books, treating them with care, etc. It was a feeling that was denied me because of some sort of rules that I didn't make up. I still buy into these rules but I wanted to experience that feeling. To see what it was like to transgress, up til that point, a personal taboo.

What's your position on recycling books? I personally was shocked to hear that it was being done all the time... I'm thinking you are against that as well based on your comments so far.

I have not reached a firm conclusion about where I lie on the spectrum of how far gone a book has to be before it loses its value or how many copies should be retained to make sure the human voice contained in a book is not extinguised. I do know that books can take on spiritual significance for some people. I certainly have a reverence for them of a sort. That is, I believe they are the voice of their authors ideas, feelings, and therefore a part of a recorded history of some beings existence that goes beyond the realm of physical manipulation as many of think of it.

Well, I really should get some sleep now. I hope whomever reads this is well rested. I just thought of yet another topic which I may post before I go to sleep. Otherwise, I'll lay there thinking about it.

Yes, Timbo I think you got what I was saying. That brings up another thought which is that over time the meaning of the symbol changes. There is a constant need to re-define and make fresh symbols for the times. One example of this is how after Gibson's JC movie came out there was a marketing of a nail as a replacement symbol for the cross. To me they are essentially the same, they are the instruments of JC's death. I don't know that it means anything else except that it indicates the 'staleness' of the cross as a symbol of such death.

I take the viewpoint that concepts behave like organisms, and systems of thought like species, in their attempt to take root in the human mind and perpetuate themselves. Ideas can mutate or become extinct over time, like dinosaurs. Book burning, at least out of ideological motivation, is a means of manipulating the natural evolution of human thought, and for that reason I am generally opposed to it.

Of course books are also burned for reasons of practicality, or otherwise destroyed by poor handling. I have mixed feelings about that too. Books have a value that transcends their content. For example, there is a later edition of Alice in Wonderland that was only distributed on a promotional basis for a span of three years. One run was printed. Because of printing difficulties and and the low anticipated demand, it was never made available for direct purchase. This book was not considered valuable at the time of publication.

Of the original 3000 copies, it is unknown how many actually made it into the hands of readers. Children's books have a much higher probability of wear and tear over the years than other books. Today, less than 30 copies are known to exist; of those, very few in good or better condition. To a collector or completist, curating editions like these is like preserving an endangered species that cannot replenish itself. For these reasons, there are a lot of books that I dislike, but would hesitate to burn.

That being said, I believe that paperbacks were designed to be cheap and disposable, like magazines. I don't have as much of an attachment or problem with the idea of burning them. It is my opinion that if the author or publisher had intended for the book to last more than a couple of decades, they would have put more effort and care into binding and production. There are some nicely bound paperbacks coming out nowdays and I don't know what to make of those, they mostly just make me mad.