Yeah, that’s an extremely hot take. 90% of everything is garbage and books are no exception. I don’t understand this mystification of books. As if shit becomes better when you take the effort of printing and binding it.
I’m quite certain it’s a carry-over from the ‘middle’ ages. Before the printing press, books would take an extreme amount of resources to create. You had to get the leather from a calf or ten twenty+ (IIRC one calf has enough skin for two pages), which would be bought from multiple villages within a lords domain (understand that cows were incredibly valuable back then for their milk and meat). Then you had to prepare it; the reason calves were used was because their skin would be relatively undamaged from bug bites (which would became holes during preparation) and would have somewhat less hair on it. Then you would have to have a scribe actually write in it and have it “illuminated” by other craftsmen (making it look pretty by applying gold leaf to the cover and/or the first letters of the chapter). This would all take years of labour as well.
By the end, a finished, illuminated book would likely cost more than the entire building it’s stored in, hence the chained libraries.
It’s also an aesthetic; the smell of papers the abundance of spines to read in your peripheral vision, the tidiness (or not) of your organizational system, the physical weight and visceral accessibility of knowledge indexed durable independent of source, the telltale signs of use utility and lovedness in the media you just dont get on a ssd.
I can’t speak to that, but the two films I did go see (‘ironically’ apparently with my gf and our mate) were atrocious, despite a strong Robert Patterson
😐 https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2.The_Worst_Books_of_All_Time
Yeah, that’s an extremely hot take. 90% of everything is garbage and books are no exception. I don’t understand this mystification of books. As if shit becomes better when you take the effort of printing and binding it.
I’m quite certain it’s a carry-over from the ‘middle’ ages. Before the printing press, books would take an extreme amount of resources to create. You had to get the leather from a calf or
tentwenty+ (IIRC one calf has enough skin for two pages), which would be bought from multiple villages within a lords domain (understand that cows were incredibly valuable back then for their milk and meat). Then you had to prepare it; the reason calves were used was because their skin would be relatively undamaged from bug bites (which would became holes during preparation) and would have somewhat less hair on it. Then you would have to have a scribe actually write in it and have it “illuminated” by other craftsmen (making it look pretty by applying gold leaf to the cover and/or the first letters of the chapter). This would all take years of labour as well.By the end, a finished, illuminated book would likely cost more than the entire building it’s stored in, hence the chained libraries.
It’s also an aesthetic; the smell of papers the abundance of spines to read in your peripheral vision, the tidiness (or not) of your organizational system, the physical weight and visceral accessibility of knowledge indexed durable independent of source, the telltale signs of use utility and lovedness in the media you just dont get on a ssd.
I swear one of my mates buys books as ornaments…
The Giver is on this list?? It’s the only book I’ve wiling read three times!
Northern Lights (The Golden Compass for you Americans) is also No. 25 on the list, so fair to say it’s a rather controversial list.
Yeah. Animal Farm is on that list, which strikes me as wild
That’s a good list of utter trash. The Catcher in the Rye seems out of place though.
Is Twilight really such a bad book? I read the first book when I was 12. I can’t remember it being exceptionally bad – but again, I was 12…
I can’t speak to that, but the two films I did go see (‘ironically’ apparently with my gf and our mate) were atrocious, despite a strong Robert Patterson