Ha! I like your annotations better. The sample image makes me think it had been used as a university text -- whose annotations are typically so tedious that even reading them reprises the plodding progress of the student.
I once borrowed a copy of Paris Trout in which some helpful soul had "translated" southern dialect for we Canadians. Interested parties will find it at the Vancouver Public Library's Central Branch.
I freely annotate all my books. To me a book is a tool, and to me what is important is not what the author says, but rather what I take away from it; what it means to me. I think the author would much prefer that I read his book with intensity and really think about what he says, rather than keep it in a pristine condition but give it only a superficial reading. As far as being a "custodian" of my books goes, I give short shrift to that idea; I am an owner. Further, I like to think that my annotations have some value, and will be of some assistance to anyone who may get one of my books when I am gone.
Hmm... Can't say I feel as confident about my own thoughts, Anon. And, to be frank, I've rarely encountered a reader's annotation that was of assistance - quite the opposite, in fact. To these eyes, marginalia, scoring and the like is an intrusion - an uninvited, often demanding voice coming between the reader and author. I can't see that marginalia is in any way required to read a book with intensity or contemplation.
I'd never suggest that books are best kept in pristine condition. Books are to be read, pointe finale. Lord knows there are enough examples here of books that fairly fell apart in the reading, just as I predicted. Fellow collectors may cringe, but I don't feel a speck of guilt or regret. That said, I own a good many volumes that are very rare indeed. I truly think that to mark them up is a disservice to future readers. I'm happy that, for the most part, previous generations have felt likewise.
Obviously, it depends on who is making the annotations. For instance, Fermat's last theorem was an annotation in his copy of Arithmetica. The following has been stated by George Whalley concerning the marginalia of S. T. Coleridge, which have been published in book form by the Princeton University Press: "There is no body of marginalia ... comparable with Coleridge's in range and variety ..." St. Thomas Aquinas published voluminous commentaries on Aristotle; I wonder what his copies of Aristotle's works looked like? I wonder whether you would pay more for a book with annotations by a famous author? Most other people would.
Anyone may have his opinion on this issue. My opinion is that annotations form a continuing dialogue by the owners of the book down through the decades. I am interested in seeing what my predecessor owners thought. If annotations follow Sturgeon's Law and 90% of them are worthless, perhaps the remaining 10% will have some value, if only as an expression of their times or to spark speculation as to the nature of the owner. In any event, I would not take out my annoyance on people who treat their property as they like. They owe me nothing. If I don't like a copy that has been annotated, I shouldn't buy it in the first place.
A writer, ghostwriter, écrivain public, literary historian and bibliophile, I'm the author of Character Parts: Who's Really Who in CanLit (Knopf, 2003), and A Gentleman of Pleasure: One Life of John Glassco, Poet, Translator, Memoirist and Pornographer (McGill-Queen's UP, 2011; shortlisted for the Gabrielle Roy Prize). I've edited over a dozen books, including The Heart Accepts It All: Selected Letters of John Glassco (Véhicule, 2013) and George Fetherling's The Writing Life: Journals 1975-2005 (McGill-Queen's UP, 2013). I currently serve as series editor for Ricochet Books and am a contributing editor for Canadian Notes & Queries. My most recent book is The Dusty Bookcase (Biblioasis, 2017), a collection of revised and expanded reviews first published here and elsewhere.
Ha! I like your annotations better. The sample image makes me think it had been used as a university text -- whose annotations are typically so tedious that even reading them reprises the plodding progress of the student.
ReplyDeleteI suspect you're right about it having been used as a university text, Amy.
DeleteWord used most frequently: IMAGERY (invariably in caps).
Then there's the hero of "Consenting Adults," whose hobby is underlining things at random in library books to confuse the next person who reads them.
ReplyDeleteI once borrowed a copy of Paris Trout in which some helpful soul had "translated" southern dialect for we Canadians. Interested parties will find it at the Vancouver Public Library's Central Branch.
DeleteI freely annotate all my books. To me a book is a tool, and to me what is important is not what the author says, but rather what I take away from it; what it means to me. I think the author would much prefer that I read his book with intensity and really think about what he says, rather than keep it in a pristine condition but give it only a superficial reading. As far as being a "custodian" of my books goes, I give short shrift to that idea; I am an owner. Further, I like to think that my annotations have some value, and will be of some assistance to anyone who may get one of my books when I am gone.
ReplyDeleteHmm... Can't say I feel as confident about my own thoughts, Anon. And, to be frank, I've rarely encountered a reader's annotation that was of assistance - quite the opposite, in fact. To these eyes, marginalia, scoring and the like is an intrusion - an uninvited, often demanding voice coming between the reader and author. I can't see that marginalia is in any way required to read a book with intensity or contemplation.
DeleteI'd never suggest that books are best kept in pristine condition. Books are to be read, pointe finale. Lord knows there are enough examples here of books that fairly fell apart in the reading, just as I predicted. Fellow collectors may cringe, but I don't feel a speck of guilt or regret. That said, I own a good many volumes that are very rare indeed. I truly think that to mark them up is a disservice to future readers. I'm happy that, for the most part, previous generations have felt likewise.
Obviously, it depends on who is making the annotations. For instance, Fermat's last theorem was an annotation in his copy of Arithmetica. The following has been stated by George Whalley concerning the marginalia of S. T. Coleridge, which have been published in book form by the Princeton University Press: "There is no body of marginalia ... comparable with Coleridge's in range and variety ..." St. Thomas Aquinas published voluminous commentaries on Aristotle; I wonder what his copies of Aristotle's works looked like? I wonder whether you would pay more for a book with annotations by a famous author? Most other people would.
DeleteAnyone may have his opinion on this issue. My opinion is that annotations form a continuing dialogue by the owners of the book down through the decades. I am interested in seeing what my predecessor owners thought. If annotations follow Sturgeon's Law and 90% of them are worthless, perhaps the remaining 10% will have some value, if only as an expression of their times or to spark speculation as to the nature of the owner. In any event, I would not take out my annoyance on people who treat their property as they like. They owe me nothing. If I don't like a copy that has been annotated, I shouldn't buy it in the first place.