There is such a diverse response to the question, What is a Book? I found it interesting to see what other students felt needed to be included in their definitions and what they decided would be ok to leave out.
There is so much history behind all parts of a book.
Papyrus was used most for making scrolls but cracked when folded so in order to fix this, sheets of papyrus were glued together and rolled up to make scrolls. The text was rolled up on the inside to protect it and while being unrolled with one hand, it had to be rolled up with the other at the same time. Papyrus was fragile and easily damaged by both moisture and dryness. Parchment was more durable but much heavier which wasn't ideal for bigger volumes. The codex evolved from writing tablets.
They had a protective cover, it could be used for both large and small volumes, it was more efficient, portable, easier to store and easier to read.
But is all this history relevant to what makes a book a book today?
The most interesting point that I found in one of the discussions was about Brail in books. It's not something I ever considered when thinking of my own definition. I would be interested to know how a blind person would define a book. I imagine that the physical form would be much the same but what would they say about the content? Perhaps this is something I could try and find more info on.
I do recognise that the definition of a book is culturally specific and I believe that my definition reflects my cultures expectations. This does not mean that I have disregarded other things that may be included in other people's definition of a book. It just means my definition targets my society in 2013 (and more likely the definition most 90's kids would relate to).
One thing I did forget to mention in my definition but I'm not too worried about is that it's not just the form of a book that may differ but also the structure of the content. Books are not always read in the Western convention and I think that as we accept more cultures as a part of our own, it may be important to include their way of reading into my definition. For example, I know that Japanese Manga is very popular among many youth and these books are printed to be read from back to front.
My definition of a book is as follows:
A book typically consists of a cover and pages bound together with the ability to be opened, closed, an pages turned in between. Most commonly a book is made of paper but has been made from other materials in the past. A book has a beginning and an end. It may contain written or printed information, thoughts and ideas, pictures or stories etc. It really could contain anything!
There are many other things that contain 'book-like' features (eg. an ebook or a scroll), or may be considered perhaps as a 'sub category' of books (eg. a magazine or newspaper).
There are many other things that contain 'book-like' features (eg. an ebook or a scroll), or may be considered perhaps as a 'sub category' of books (eg. a magazine or newspaper).
I think my definition did very well in taking into account many of the points in the study guide. It mentioned; what a book is made of (and acknowledge that it was different in the past), it took in to account the most common physical form of a book and mentioned the idea of other things that have book-like features, it mentioned the idea of a cover, pages and sequence but not necessarily as essential components, and what it may or may not contain.
After further reading I think my definition will remain as is. The research that I have done has reinforced my ideas of what a book is. I thought it was interesting that the web resource 'The book form: A brief history of the book' on the Art and Books website says that the scroll is considered to be the first book form from around 3000 BC. I disagree. I wonder if scrolls can really be classed as books and if the term 'book' was used at all in this time? Or were they simply just scrolls? I understand that scrolls have 'book-like' features, but I think that scrolls would have a fairly strong definition of their own. I'm learning that there are ways of making the definition of a book less complicated.
To back up my ideas of what is not a book I read Philip Smith's 'The Whatness of Bookness, or What is a Book'. I strongly agree with Smith and glad I took the time to read the article. I believe that just because something has book-like features, it doesn't make it a book. Smith says in his article that 'The term (book) should not strictly include pre-codex carriers of text such as the scroll or the clay tablet, in fact nothing on a single leaf or planar surface such as a TV screen, poster or handbill..'
I think there is a lot more to a book than just 'something you pick up and read.'(Richard Seibert - www.artistbooks.com/editions/wiab.html)
That could be anything!!
I apologise to anyone who may disagree but to me, a scroll is a scroll, a poster is a poster, and a book is a book.
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment