Monday, March 16, 2009

"Book"....

My initial definition of 'book' is:

A book is a device used to store and communicate information, written, illustrated or otherwise, that is available to be consumed by the masses.

The following is what Sue asked us to consider when evaluating our first definition of 'book':

1. What a book is made of

  • Paper has a relatively short history as a means of communicating information
  • Other materials in different cultures and at different times include clay, stone, silk, leather, parchment, leaves and bamboo

2. What a book looks like - its physical form

  • Does a book have to be made of separate pages?
  • Do pages have to be bound/joined together in some way?
  • Does this binding have to be permanent?
  • If the binding is removed is what remains still a book?
  • How big or small can a book be?
  • Is a scroll a book?
  • Does a book have to have a physical form?
  • Is an 'electronic book' a book?
  • What about a talking book?

3. What the essential components of a book are

  • Does a book have to have cover and pages?
  • Does a book involve the concept of sequence?

4. What the book contains

  • Does a book have to carry, or have the potential to carry, information?

5. How the book is used

  • Is a book that is bound up so you cannot read its content still a book?

6. Does a book have to have longevity?

  • Can magazines or newspapers be classified as books?

In my definition of 'book' I have purposely not mentioned some of these considerations such as “What as book is made of” and “What a book looks like”. For example, I consider that a digital or virtual book is still a book even though it lacks what Philip Smith considers to be 'bookness' (http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/bookarts/1996/09/msg00153.html).

At the other end of the physical spectrum we're told in A Brief History of the Book (lecture notes: http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/humss/art317/form/briefhist.htm) that multiple wood blocks or tablets that were filled with wax and written on with a stylus "could be joined by lacing to make a more substantial volume, with up to ten tablets sometimes being combined". Smith's 'bookness' has as part of his definition "... the term covers the packaging of multiple planes held together in fixed or variable sequence by some kind of hinging mechanism, support, or container, associated with a visual/verbal content called a text". He then goes on to say that "pre-codex carriers of text such as the scroll or the clay tablet" should not be included. I disagree. Examples such as these indicate to me that the materials from which a book is made cannot impact on the definition of 'book'.

Sequence is a factor I didn’t considering when forming my definition. A picture book, as read by a librarian to a young child, will most likely be read in a fixed and linear sequence. Take the librarian out of the situation and sequence can also be removed. Young children may not begin at the front of the book and they may not proceed sequentially; a page at a time. That doesn't mean that the book they are 'reading' is any less a book. Board books for very young children are one kind of book whose pages have no sequence; for example a book that whose pages comprise a picture of an animal with the animals name underneath. What I'm referring to is not nonlinear narratives, but books whose meaning would not change if the pages of the books were rearranged. On reflection, I don’t think that sequence can be part of the definition of ‘book’.

When considering point 5 – “How the book is used”, and specifically “Is a book that is bound up so you cannot read its content still a book?” my definition needs to be amended. I now feel that information does not necessarily have to be “available to be consumed by the masses”. Anne Frank wrote a diary that was used to store information and had Smith’s ‘bookness’, but it was not intended to be consumed by anyone other than herself. Likewise, a book that is bound in such a way as to make its content unavailable for reading is still a book; it has the same qualities as Anne Frank’s diary.

Emily-Jane Dawson talks about the format of the book and mentions the un-openable book: (http://www.philobiblon.com/isitabook/bookarts/index.html)

“There have been some more dramatic, physical expriments (sic) with the book format (the results of which might not be defined as books by the average reader/observer): these are typically books which are textual or book-like but cannot or were not meant to be easily read - they might be said to be more sculptural than booklike (sic). Some examples of possibilites (sic) in this area are: books which are sewn, taped, stapled, or nailed shut, or which have other structural qualities that keep then from being opened; books which have their pages entirely disfigured so that they cannot be read; books which have words, lines, or whole sections of text covered or blacked out so that new stories are created from the old text; books with their pages torn out; books which have been variously burned, mutilated, or dampened; and books with the pages folded or added to, to create patterns.”

Important to me in this paragraph is the reference to what the definition of book is to “the average reader/observe”.

In regards to the point concerning longevity and if this impacts on whether or not magazines or newspapers can be defined as books, I have kept certain magazines for longer than I have kept hardcover novels. I still think of them as ‘magazine’, but maybe this is a term of convenience, identifying a sub-category of books in the same way that a book of maps is called an ‘atlas’, or a bound graphic novel is still to many a ‘comic’. The newspapers kept by libraries are valuable historical documents, providing social, political, economic and cultural references. Magazines that have been kept are similarly valuable. Both certainly meet James’ criteria of bookness. Many books that are perfect bound have a far shorter life as a usable book than those that are stitched or hand-bound, but they are no less books for their shorter life.

I considered the function of ‘book’ to be the critical factor when formulating my definition.

My amended version reads:

A book is a device used to store and communicate information, written, illustrated or otherwise.

No comments:

Post a Comment