(no subject)

[slemslempike]

Often when I see stuff about New And Interesting Ways of "Doing" Books I hate it, though this is usually when it is books as furniture. I am overall less milliant than I used to be about what other people do with their books (though I have in no way succumbed to leniency overall). The comments on this piece:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/135353

are generally hating the idea, but I think it's really interesting. A publisher has put out a book that "disappears" after two months. I guess it's photosensitive ink, so you'd have to be careful not to open it before you were ready to crack on with it. It would be absolutely terrible if that were the standard for books (and also for this one it doesn't work if you're a really slow reader), but as a one-off I like the idea of a book that can forcibly change how you read it. Also, if I hated it but felt I should go on (Nicola Marlow reading rules), then I wouldn't have it lying around with a ticket stub stuck a third of the way through for years, guilty feeling that I should continue, it would just vanish.

Daniel Kitson's recent theatre show has a character of a man who can't keep anything for more than a day, because he's made all these rules for himself (or as Thom Tuck kept saying in his Disney sequels show "because of plot"). One of the outcomes of this was that it might take him decades to finish a book, because he had to leave it for others at the end of 24 hours. I am not sure why he couldn't go to a library. Obviously he couldn't have a library card, but most libraries you can just go in and sit and read. I spent several afternoons doing this in New Zealand when I was a bit touristed-out.

Comments

[katlinel.livejournal.com]

I really don't like the idea, AT ALL. I do quite a lot of re-reading, so owning a book that I can't come back to without purchasing it again leads to huge amounts of DO NOT WANT. I've got over my Nicola Marlow feelings and am quite happy to chuck books I don't like (and by chuck I mean send to charity shops) so being forced to read something not at my own pace makes me feel like I'm back at school again. Although that was usually the other way round at school where I was always reading ahead.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I re-read a lot, and also want to sometimes read only little bits of a book. Also when reading academic books I desperately need to be able to go back to something, and only to properly read a small section while having skimmed the rest. So as a general principle it would be terrible. However, I really like what it says about the permanence of otherwise of literature - would it stay with me more if I knew I couldn't re-read it? How would it be remembered differently by the separate readers if discussions couldn't be "solved" by referring back to the text.

[katlinel.livejournal.com]

I should be more excited about exploring those questions, but I'm really not. Because to me it seems like it's a form of control that wouldn't add anything to my reading experience, and would actually take away from it. Would I try and remember it more? That depends on how much I'd value what I'd read. And not only does that tie it into a money-making gimmick, but it also irritates me as my current physical condition means that I have to write things down to remember them when it comes to books, so that would turn reading the book into a more laborious, and frustrating experience if I couldn't get through it quickly enough when I was writing things down in relation to it. I could read it again if I buy another copy, as I assume they're not going to make it the equivalent of a bee using its sting. The frustration and irritation I feel in response to this book concept isn't sufficient to make it worth my while.

Interesting discussions aren't usually solved by referring back to the text, because the interesting stuff is the readers' perceptions of the text anyway.

Perhaps I'm just limited in that I'm not abstracting enough to get excited about this particular narrative challenge.

Oh and given that the library was and is absolutely central to my reading experience, I don't like the way the library, and the way it enhances access to not just books, is excluded from this particular reading experience.

[cakesy.livejournal.com]

I think it's surprising that people are being annoyed with it from a practical standpoint when it seems like more of a narrative/artistic way to provoke a response and have an effect on the way you experience reading the book - whether the response it provokes is a sense of urgency or frustration or whatever. (Or, at least, I'd hope so. The book itself may be rub or just trading off the gimmick, but there's still the potential to do something interesting with it.)

It's obviously not exactly the same, but I'm reminded of the online flash game that you can only play once (that's a link to the review, not the game itself). Obviously you don't want all games to do that, but the way this one works, it ties the 'you can only play it once' concept into the game, and it changes the player's experience.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

That game sounds fascinating! I may set aside some time to play it.

I really like things like the idea that if I read this book, that might mean that no-one else could read that copy, and after a while there would literally be no way that someone else could go to the source. But maybe that would enhance sharing, because rather than someone "always meaning to read that", they'd have to rely on a probably unreliable retelling BUT AREN'T ALL NARRATORS UNRELIABLE aahhhhhhhhh!