I have finally got round to unpacking my books. However, what used to be the one consolation in having to move so frequently in the past is now just an irritant. I used to be able to recall exactly when I bought a particular book, the circumstances that led me to buy it and where I bought the book from - and, more importantly, to enjoy recalling these minutiae as I unpacked them - but unpacking them now and they just annoy me. I have only read a small percentage of the books that I possess and, of those books that I have read, I only treasure a handful. So my question to myself is, why do I keep them all when they obviously distress me. I am afraid not just because I appear to have become 'a minimalist' - a term for which I have only had disdain in the past - but also because I might not ever have the time to read - or, more precisely, study - all the books that I haven't read but which I would like to and that seeing them stacked on bookshelves in front of me just reminds me how little time I might have.
It is so depressing.
2 comments:
Felicitas, I envy the fact that you have them with you in one place. Mine are dispersed right now in Italy and England. I would love to have them with me. Not sure what you mean by minimalist- Kant's library was perhaps surprisingly similarly minimalist? You say: "All the books that I haven't read but which I would like to...". I'm sure that is a common sentiment and experience of, let us say, mature readers. Turn it on its head, and enjoy the more those cherished books(like Italo Svevo or Kierkegaard, or Gillian's) books that you clearly do know so well!
(Ps it was the subject of Gillian Rose on Google that led me directly to your blog. I was a former student of hers at Sussex)
Hi John, yes, you are right: I should be grateful that I have them with me in one place. I should also cherish more the books that I have read and do love rather than getting upset at the thought that I might not have the opportunity to read other books that I haven't already read but which I might not equally cherish.
I'm not sure what I meant by 'minimalist' either! I wanted to quote a scene from the film "Out of Africa" to explain what I meant but it was becoming too lengthy a distraction as well as requiring more thought from me than I was prepared to invest at the time. I shall have to give it more thought, though, because I think there is potentially some real insight to be gained, for me, at least.
As for stumbling across this page through google I should perhaps be a little more discreet - I suspect that work on Gillian Rose is a growing 'industry' and I wouldn't want to mislead anyone into thinking that I know more than I do by quoting from her or others about whom she also wrote. I never met Gillian but I have listened to several taped recordings of some of her lectures at Sussex and she certainly came across as an entertaining if also extremely precise academic. I was particularly interested when she appeared to stutter and stammer over a sentence in her lectures since, of course, her written work, however beautiful, is incredibly concise (but indeed even more beautiful because of her concision).
Post a Comment