Comments on: Must We Burn Faulkner?

By: laurex

laurex — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:50:04 +0000

First a semantic point- yes, it may be quite cheap to acquire a computer (though one needs to have access to Craigslist of course) but the hardware may not be the problem- internet access can be expensive over time and requires a sufficient degree of credit to obtain.

Aside from that, though, this solution:

Skip the dead trees, find ways to make it easier for people to get online, and reform our absurd copyright system so that we don't have to wait a century for great works to enter the public domain.

ignores a fundamental issue, the role of public space. A library is not just somewhere that contains books, it is a place for people to go, to learn about books; persuse the shelves in a non-commercial setting; interact with people with degrees who are trained to help them (well, Barnes & Noble has that, but it's not quite the same); bring children; attend social programs, lectures, etc.

Now, not everything is working in the public libary system, really, a lot are pretty bad. But it's not because there isn't a fundamental need for these kind of spaces. And sure you can just go order a book you want on Amazon, but I have read many books from the library just because they looked kind of interesting and it's free, after all.

And for the record, I think Faulkner is cool.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:11:10 +0000

Neil:
Well, it’s more efficient still to have 10,000 people read the same copy in digital form…

By: Neil the Ethical Werewolf

Neil the Ethical Werewolf — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:32:00 +0000

Depending on how the book market works, there may be reasons for subsidizing people’s amusement. It’s more efficient to have 20 people all read the same copy (as can happen in a library) than for each of the 20 people to buy their own copies.

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:24:45 +0000

I don’t know much ’bout these here libaries, but all I know is if they gots Faulkner, I don’t much like ‘em.

I’ve hated everything Faulkner I’ve read. The only difference between it and Britney Spears’ autobiography is the second will actually get taken out.

Even if someone came in and took out some terrible trash novel, just the fact that they’re reading something at all instead of running screaming from the room upon glimpsing the horror that is Absalom, Absalom — means that trash novel is “educating” more than Faulkner.

Education should be engrossing, entertaining, stimulating and interesting. There are thousands of “educational” books that are. Faulkner is none of those things (at least to me, and the residents of Fairfax). Maybe the problem isn’t we simple-minded idiots who obviously don’t can’t get Faulkner, and rather instead the fact that Faulkner writes crap no one (except lots of people who already have quite a decent literary education) seems to like.

Faulkner isn’t entry level literature. No one should start on a education in literature with Faulkner. Once that hypothetical you has read quite a bit of other stuff, you can move on to it — but the fact that you have enough leisure time to pursue advanced literary education indicates you have, as you point out, enough money to pay 4$ for the book. And you probably will want to, in order to truly appreciate the great and beautiful work of art it no doubt is.

Sorry, ranting…. I just hate Faulkner.