[New-Poetry] kindly thought about bad books

[Halvard Johnson]

It's much to be preferred that people believe ALL books
all sacred than to believe ONE book is sacred.

Hal, the unreasoning

"If there is anyone here I have not
  offended, I apologize."
                    --Johannes Brahms

Halvard Johnson
================
halvard at gmail.com
halvard at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard
http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
http://www.hamiltonstone.org

On Mar 7, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Elaine Brown wrote:

> Don’t get me wrong with this question.  I’m a total bookophile.
>
> But why should we regard books as sacred?  I mean, a thing just  
> *being* a book is enough to mean the thing is sacred?  This seems  
> not obviously right to me (which does not mean it is wrong).   
> Anyone have a well-argued reason?
>
>
> On 3/7/07 9:06 AM, "JforJames at aol.com" <JforJames at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> As bab blurbs have ebbed away, here's a thought to end that thread...
>>
>> Even bad books are books and therefore sacred.
>> --(narrator Oskar Matzerath) Günther Grass. 1959. “Rasputin and  
>> the Alphabet.” The Tin Drum, bk. 1. tr. R. Manheim. 1961.
>>
>>
>>
>> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's  
>> free from AOL at AOL.com <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/ 
>> 1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol% 
>> 2Ecom> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20070307/dfb3a368/attachment.html