Skip to main content

Bah, humbug - giving books away?

We are blessed to live in a village with six (count 'em) pubs, each excellent in its own way, though we personally favour the excellent Plough pictured here.

However, every time we go in, I can't help but wince. On one wall there's a small bookcase that advertises itself as part of the now defunct Book Swap programme, established by the BBC's Read and Write campaign.

The idea is simple. All the books are free to take away - but you are encouraged to bring one or more along to replace them. Books for nothing, as it almost says in the Dire Straits song, though I don't know about chicks for free.

On the face of it, this is a good thing, encouraging people to read more. But it could also be encouraging them not to buy books - forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about this concept. Most writers earn a pittance as it is. Anything that encourages people to share books freely somehow doesn't seem fair. I wouldn't get far encouraging people to share their cinema experience freely by videoing the movie and swapping it with friends. I know it's not quite the same, but...

In the end, intellectually, I think I'm just about in favour of the concept. Arguably if you get people in the habit of reading they will buy more books as well as swapping them. But it doesn't stop my gut reaction of horror every time I see that Book Swap sign.
Labels:

Comments

  1. MagicMan20 April 2009 at 12:17

    Book swapping, the library and exchanges between freinds are all healthy habits in the reader's world. Your right, it encourages the habit and gets people to read things they would not normally buy. This can expand their selection of reading material, grow their boundries and increase sales. So don't let that bookcase distract you from the pint waiting inside.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg20 April 2009 at 15:18

    Libraries are different, of course, because there's PLR. But mostly I just concentrate on the pint!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more