Skip to main content

Bring back my bookshop to me, to me

In the UK there is only one significant chain bookseller left - Waterstones. They aren't perfect by any means - but they're a lot better than nothing. Yet nothing is what a fair number of towns look likely to be left with soon.

I gather the HMV chain, which owns music/video store HMV and Waterstones has had a bad quarter. They still made a profit, but profits were down on the previous year. Because of this, they have decided to close 60 shops - 40 of them HMV and 20 Waterstones. But here's the thing. It is the HMV part of the chain that has done really badly - Waterstones isn't the problem, yet 20 bookstores are to go.

I don't know if this on top of, or as a well as a separate announcement I saw that Waterstones in Maidenhead and in Slough are to close. This seems like someone with a grudge - these are adjacent towns, leaving a big hole in West Berkshire's book buying capability (I know there's Windsor still, but even so...)

Lovers of independent bookshops might be rubbing their hands with glee, seeing the demise of the chain as a good thing, but I really not sure. I am very fond of good indies (though I do know a couple of rubbish ones), but there should be room for both - like it or not, somewhere like Waterstones (and the sadly demised Borders) are better at pulling in the borderline book buyer than the slightly clubbish, in-crowd feel of an independent. Now the large group of occasional buyers will be left with W. H. Smiths and supermarkets. I'd also say in Waterstones' favour that, as an author, I've had really good experiences with both the Waterstones at the Science Museum and in Swindon.

This is very sad news for the towns involved (I don't know which yet), and I wish HMV would reconsider. We need our Waterstones.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 recent 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 ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou