Bookstore Owner Burns Books

Several readers sent us links to an AP story about a pair of Kansas City booksellers who staged a book bonfire, claiming to protest declining literacy. The story doesn't convey a sure sense of the booksellers' motives for what could, in fact, be a PR stunt or a subtle act of extortion against book lovers — it does mention that people were buying books out of the piles awaiting immolation. The bookstore's own site tries to sound sincere, but it offers visitors a chance to save books from the flames for $1 each plus postage.

Comments

Triad of Inquisition

[MSTCrow5429]

I read about this earlier, and have three questions: 1) Is this a sincere protest about a supposed lack of reading among the US population? Millions of new unsold books are pulped each year, so this just sounds illogical. or 2) Is this a bizarre marketing ploy? and 3) Is there a list of which books you can "save" for a dollar each? Can you select them? How much is shipping and handling? Enough to turn "saved" into "positive profit margin," I suspect.

Re:Triad of Inquisition

[zeroduck]

Theres a great way to save old books--BookMooch. People list their unwanted books to give away to other users of the website. It's pretty simple--list your books for 1/10th point each, receive 1 point for giving a book away, and spend 1 point to get a book from another member.

...and thats my pimping BookMooch speech.

I'd doubt that there is enough profit at $1 a book to organize and store the books--you're talking about a lot of books. Most older books just don't have much of a market value; I assure you that nothing you would want to read was destroyed (although, I still cringe on the thought of burning books).

I heard of a French wine boycott a few years ago..

[jrutley]

where they BOUGHT a whole bunch of French wine and poured it down the sewers. This book burning seems about as smart to me as that.

Re:So what?

[morcego]

Is that simply a function of how complex the grammar is?

No.

Does Lord of the Rings, one of the most horrendously written classics ever created, qualify as having literary value?

Nope. Great book, tho. Read it 7 time already, in 2 languages.

Wizard of Oz? Or heck, how about anything by Charles Dickens, who was immensely popular, but generally regarded as having no literary value in his time?

I have to admit never reading Wizard of Oz (only saw the movie). And I dislike Dickens, so I'm biased there.

As far as I can tell, the difference between literature and non-literature is the date on the book. If it passes the test of time, then it's considered classic literature.

You are correct as far as "classic" goes.

I don't know about anybody else, but there's no doubt in my mind that 100 years from now, HP will still be around as classic literature.

It sure will be a classic. No doubt about that. Heck, some people already consider Mists of Avalon a classic.

Ok, not for the big question:

So how do you define "literary" value?

Literary is a complex classification, so I'll explain my PoV in two parts. First by explanation, then by giving some examples. Please, bear with me.

A literary work first must have intrinsic artistic value. Then, it must have intellectual value. Then, it must be creative. Entertainment value doesn't enter the picture here, as far as I'm concerned (from what I've seen).

For my examples, I'll try to pick, probably without much success, some non controversial names.

Some good books with poor literary value:
- Any good technical book
- Harry Potter (controversial, but already stated)
- Lord of the Rings (boy, you guys are going to kill me)
- 1984
- Anything by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Some good literary works, but poor books:
- The Lusiads (name 1 person who actually enjoyed the book)
- Midnight Summer Dreams (not a book, but a play, so it can't be a good book)
- Most of Shakespeare work (for the same reason)
- Anything by Dostoevsky

Some good literary works that are also good books:
- Brave New World
- Dracula
- Frankenstein
- The Three Musketeers
- Mobydick (which I actually didn't enjoy)

Bad literary works and bad books:
- Dead Souls (Nikolai Gogol) [Worst book ever, as far as I'm concerned]

Time is only a factor if you consider "surviving the test of time", which is usually the case. Since I don't think it is always the case (many good books and authors end up forgotten, for whatever reasons), I didn't list it before. But it is a valid clue.

I hope this helps to clarify my point of view, even if you don't agree with me (not my intention to convince anyone).

Re:So what?

[Rabbit Time!]

Erm...what? This whole set of opinions is, in my opinion, pretty off the mark. Apparently Shakespeare isn't entertaining (have you counted the number of raunchy jokes in his comedies?), Dostoevsky writes 'poor books' (those are fabulously well-constructed, nuanced works, and not usually a terrible slog to read, either), 1984 has no literary value, but Dracula and Frankenstein do. Oh, and plays have no literary value because they're not 'books.' Ack! I tend to say that with books, there is candy and there is steak. Tom Robbins? Candy. Harry Potter? Candy. Lord of the Rings is totally candy. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? No. Does this make them less worthy of existence? No. Should your diet consist only of candy? Emphatically no. Sometimes you have to read stuff that's only for fun, especially if you tend to read a lot of dense books, you need a break...but you need some sort of nutrition in your diet too. Now Joan Collins? That's simply crap, and you should probably stay away from that sort of thing. :-) I agree with you on disliking Dickens, though. Didn't surprise me a bit when I found out he often got paid a penny a work. Great stories, but I cannot stand to read them. Lots of people love them, though, so maybe I'm missing something. Also, that would be 'Midsummer Night's Dream,' and its Shakespeare, so it probably shouldn't be listed separately.