While searching my shelves for an old book that I clearly remember having purchased, I started noticing others that I haven't given any thought to in years despite how "big" they were in their day. I never did find the book I was looking for (and probably never will since so many books have passed into and out of my hands over the years that I can't remember which of them should still be with me anymore), but I ended up with a desire to experience some of those touchstone books again.
James Dickey's Deliverance is a good example. Primarily known as a Southern poet prior to Deliverance, Dickey hit the jackpot with the novel after it became a major motion picture starring Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight, among others. Even today that movie is remembered for its "Dueling Banjos" song and an iconic line that I won't be mentioning here - but you probably know the scene I'm referring to if you've seen the movie. Dickey, himself, even had a small role in the movie as a sheriff.
I've also spotted old hardback copies of William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist, James Leo Herlihy's Midnight Cowboy, and Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses that I want to re-read. I'm generally not a big fan of movies made from books I've enjoyed, but these four are some of the few novels whose movie versions have impressed me as being almost as good as the source material.
Those are just the tip of the iceberg, but they've started me thinking that its time to do a seriously deep dive into my own shelves. I've put together a decent personal library over the last decades, and I can't help but wonder what will eventually happen to all of the books. Fewer people than ever seem to have the time or the inclination to do much book-reading these days, much less the space to house them, so I fear that most will end up being boxed up and donated to charity shops at some point - if not junked entirely. It's time for me to start enjoying the books more and reminding myself why they are there in the first place.
I need to find a better balance, I think, between older books and those being published today. It's taken a lifetime for the ones still on my permanent shelves to find their way there - and to stubbornly hold on to their spots there - and the odds of matching their quality in new books feels like those of searching for that clichéd needle in the haystack. I've said this before, but even though the eye-candy books always get me in the end, maybe this time I'll be able to find a more achievable balance between the old and the new.
On a lighter note...
I just read an article about poisonous book covers from the mid-1800s that used arsenic or lead to produce certain shades of green cloth that were so popular back then. Apparently the covers are still so dangerous that "experts" only handle them while wearing protective gloves. The covers are more common on books with gilded lettering on them - and now I'm wondering about the Dickens books from the mid-1860s that are on my shelves. Some of them were signed by their original owner in 1867, and now I hope they didn't kill the poor woman.
Mine are considerably nicer than these, but this will give you an idea of the type of cover I'm talking about. There is supposed to be a long list of poisonous covers somewhere on the web, but I haven't found it yet. It's a bad day when even your books are trying to kill you.
Hi Sam, a thought provoking post. I don't have a big library but quite a few books I ordered over the years sure that I was going to read them are unread and collecting dust. I have to change this because who knows what buried treasures I might find once I start reading these books?
ReplyDeleteYou just never know, Katy. We bought them for a reason, after all. I'm hoping to read a bunch of the books from my shelves that I remember so fondly...even if in some cases, I don't remember a whole lot of detail about what's inside them. lol
DeleteSince I started using my Kindle, I keep fewer books on the shelves, and they are usually nonfiction. If I really love a book, I still end up buying a print version and love highlighting and including some marginalia, usually when I see a connection to something else.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely not adding anything even remotely to my shelves these days as the numbers I added in past years. Once it became a matter of having to remove one from the shelf in order to add one, additions really slowed down. Oh...I do the same about books or authors I really love, usually ending up with both a Kindle copy and a hardcopy of those books.
DeleteIt is a bad day when your books try to poison you! ;D And I know what you mean about all the books sitting on shelves that you own and love but never read any more. I get so caught up in new books and library books that I never seem to have time for my own books. And yet I can't imagine not having them around. Doing a deep dive into your own shelves sounds like a fun reading plan. Good luck with it! :D
ReplyDeleteFor sure, Lark. It's all taken so seriously sixty-something years later that I do have to wonder if fresh copies did actually kill a bunch of readers. Just seems weird that publishers ever thought this was a good idea.
DeleteMake that 160-something years ago...powerful stuff for sure.
DeleteThis is a constant struggle for so many readers, including this one. I bought all those books, both physical and digital, because I want to read them. New releases (and prize lists!) prove to be a constant distraction...
ReplyDeleteI often wonder if I will get to reread some of the books I have saved for that reason. I think you are headed in the right direction to try to get a balance between old and new. I do think rereading is just as important and as valuable as reading unread books, but it is hard to find time to read all the books one wants to read.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's a nice problem to have as far as problems go, but it can really be frustrating sometimes after reading a dozen or so books in a row that turn out to be as empty as cotton candy. Makes me wonder why I don't read the ones that so impressed me, and stuck deeply in my mind, all those decades ago. Easier said than done, of course.
Delete