Though the physical book is a great thing to have, the importance of it lies in what is written inside of it. The whole purpose of a book is being read, and preferably by as many people as possible. Tearing that book in two pieces did not destroy the story, or the possibility of further sharing it with others, the two halves can be put back together after all, but it did enable two people to simultaneously enjoy the beauty of what was written. So, even though I would always hesitate do damage a book like that, I cannot condemn this action. It was the love for what made this book worth reading, that caused it.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing
In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.
Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i Or... he could have just waited until she'd finished it instead of her ripping it in half like a fuckin' dingdong.
Use to always buy a paperback copy for reading in travels, commuting, or just around the house, then buy a collection copy if I felt it impressive enough to have! Passed along the paperback version to anyone truly interested in reading or gifted it to someone that should read more but couldn't afford good books.
Cost to share by ripping in half and spend time together, ($8-$20), worth every penny!!
Nope. Sorry. You don't rip a book in half.
Do it like Laura Ingalls did. Hold the book open in two places; one person reads at one spot and the other person reads at the other. Cozy.
Or just wait until the first reader is done.
No. Just no.
Wilfully desecrating a book is sacrilege, although I must admit to having broken the spine of some big blockbuster paperbacks - a hardback book is so much better designed as a reading tool and much more durable. I even find it a wrench to part with a book once I’ve read it, which is why I’m running out of wallspace at home and could do with an extra couple of rooms (not possible in a house which is over 100 years old in a conservation area).
One of the things that is guaranteed to give me apoplexy are the engraved prints you often see in antique shops that have obviously been removed from a book. However there is one historical custom that I find easier to condone and that is the writing of marginalia in books - these have often led to surprising and interesting discoveries about people.
Personally, for holidays I load up Kindle books on a tablet which saves weight and gives me greater choice. I remember one holiday on Malta when I managed to get through eight omnibus editions of Rebus stories which I was able to buy at a bookshop just down the road from the hotel. Getting them all into my suitcase for the flight home was a struggle.
A final comment if I may. I read books by a form of total immersion - I start at the beginning and read around 100 pages, then I start skipping forwards (and sometimes backwards from the end) reading 20 or 30 pages before moving on. Finally I read the whole book from beginning to end, without stopping if it is short enough (4-500 pages a day is quite simple if I do nothing else). Sharing a book before I had finished it would therefore somewhat interfere with my normal practice.
I'm like you. I revere books. I'm loathe to even loan them out unless they sign an affidavit that they swear to treat it with reverence- no dog-ears, no splaying it open flat on a surface, no fat bookmarks, no stretching the binding, no....
I'm kinda in the "rip it apart" school.
I own a lot of books (though I am slowly giving in to the lure of Kindle), but I have lent a lot of them out, paperback and hardcover, and never seen them again. And a lot of the books on my shelves were lent or given to me by friends. I thinks books should be in constant circulation, lent out to others, given away, torn in half, sold for a dollar at garage sales, whatever.
They get lonely sitting on the shelves by themselves.
All of my life books have had a sacred quality for me. About the only things that do. I would question my own morality and character if I started tearing them up.
this thread is giving me ptsd.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
