English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

The World of Books Has Changed, Part 2

redefining "going by the book"

The World of Books Has Changed, Part 2

Back when, books were regarded as authoritative and unchangeable. Difference between one copy and another was "corruption," and scholars would quibble endlessly as to which was the true version.

Hence, "going by the book," "the rule book," "handbook" (which you keep close by so that you know exactly how to do something), "the Authorized version." "Bible" simply means "book," and there are still people who take every word of it literally, and who break out in hives at the idea that there are many more texts that could be legitimately included between its covers.
The static book infects all of our thinking.

What about bookmakers? Perhaps that's a Britishism. Digression:...

When I was a kid (already a book worm), I would see the "bookmakers" storefronts in the high street, sometimes three or four of them in one town. I had a rich fantasy of the walls inside lined with shelves filled with books with multicolored bindings, sturdy wooden tables piled high with paper and thread, the smells of ink and glue in the air. When I finally asked my dad if we could go to one to see the books, he deflated me.

"It's a betting shop." 

A counter dividing customers from staff, two or three TV screens chaotic with horses and dogs angled from the corners of the ceiling, slips of paper all over the floor, cigarette smoke, men with cans of Heineken tapping those short ballpoint pens (that never work) against their teeth.  If there was a solitary female in the joint she was chainsmoking and coughing behind the counter, with permed hair dyed blonde, a ring on every finger except her thumbs, blue blush on her cheekbones. 
I never needed to go inside.
"Bookmaker," because they were responsible for analyzing all the form and options and making fair odds for the betting. Another kind of authority.

Books became a symbol of authority because they were unchangeable. Before the printing press, which itself assumes that you want all copies to be identical, illiterate monks would copy texts, having no idea what they were copying, simply transcribing the strange shapes! Human copy machines.

Before they figured out that the Homeric poems were a multilayered composite of different versions and eras, as I mentioned in the first "book" post, scholars debated--passionately and acrimoniously--over the inconsistencies, going through with their red pens and striking lines and whole scenes from the poems.

Now that it's so much easier to make changes, in the age of the computer and Internet, now that a book can exist in so many different media simultaneously, perhaps we can lose our grip on the concept of an authoritative version. Perhaps we can change our minds! 

Perhaps we can refresh our metaphors. Even with the metaphors, it's refreshing to consider: 

  • What if someone made a mistake in copying down "the word of God"?
  • What if God changed her/his mind?
  • What if we discovered a better way to repair plumbing and could adjust the handbook accordingly?
  • What if I wanted to rewrite the ending of my novel?
  • What if some important new evidence came out that either completely invalidated or conclusively proved the diet hypothesis you'd been preaching for a decade? Either way, you'd want your book to reflect that, surely.

But either way, in this totally different book world you'd also probably be more open to the idea that "completely invalidated" and "conclusively proved" might not even be realistic concepts.

Some people relish the idea of rewriting the book/changing the ending of a story. Others feel anxious, uncomfortable, or plain angry when things are changed around like that. 

Which one of those is you? 

About the Author

Ela Harrison

Ela is a wordsmith and herb lover who has lived in many places and currently resides in Tucson, AZ.

Leave a comment

You are commenting as guest.

FREE Newsletter

Upcoming Events

No events