Julian Barnes als Bibliophiler

In einem ausführlichen Artikel für den Guardian, My Life as a Bibliophile erläutert Julian Barnes ausführlich seine Beziehung zu Büchern:

I became a bit less of a book-collector (or, perhaps, book-fetishist) after I published my first novel. Perhaps, at some subconscious level, I decided that since I was now producing my own first editions, I needed other people’s less. I even started to sell books, which once would have seemed inconceivable. Not that this slowed my rate of acquisition: I still buy books faster than I can read them. But again, this feels completely normal: how weird it would be to have around you only as many books as you have time to read in the rest of your life. And I remain deeply attached to the physical book and the physical bookshop.

The current pressures on both are enormous. My last novel would have cost you £12.99 in a bookshop, about half that (plus postage) online, and a mere £4.79 as a Kindle download. The economics seem unanswerable. Yet, fortunately, economics have never entirely controlled either reading or book-buying. John Updike, towards the end of his life, became pessimistic about the future of the printed book:

For who, in that unthinkable future
When I am dead, will read? The printed page
Was just a half-millennium’s brief wonder …

I am more optimistic, both about reading and about books. There will always be non-readers, bad readers, lazy readers – there always were. Reading is a majority skill but a minority art. Yet nothing can replace the exact, complicated, subtle communion between absent author and entranced, present reader. Nor do I think the e-reader will ever completely supplant the physical book – even if it does so numerically. Every book feels and looks different in your hands; every Kindle download feels and looks exactly the same (though perhaps the e-reader will one day contain a „smell“ function, which you will click to make your electronic Dickens novel suddenly reek of damp paper, fox marks and nicotine).

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *

  • RSS Feed for Posts
  • RSS Feed for Comments
  • Twitter
  • XING
  • Facebook

Kategorien

„Die Presse“ meint:

"Aber das Internet ist nicht schuld daran, dass Zeitungen reihenweise ihre Literaturseiten „gesundschrumpfen“. Vielmehr hat es das Monopol der traditionellen Medien auf seriöse Literaturkritik gebrochen. Blogs wie die „Notizen“ des promovierten österreichischen Literaturwissenschaftlers Christian Köllerer (koellerer.net) zeigen: Es gibt genug Qualität, man muss sie nur suchen."
(5. Januar 2013)

Aktuell in Arbeit

Tweets