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.

Comments

  1. 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. 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...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

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...