[New-Poetry] kindly thought about bad books

[JforJames at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/7/2007 6:29:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
hawkbrwn at msn.com writes:

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?  



I don't have the context of Grass' line to fall back on, but I  think the 
implication is that the good and the bad
books only exist because 'books' exist. You have to say the class of  objects 
known as 'books' is sacred
otherwise neither the good nor the bad would exist. You can separate  the 
good from the bad based on taste, always subjective & fraught  with bias, but you 
can never have an existence, a real world, with  only good books.  And 
probably he's talkiing not about books but  people.
 
Finnegan
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20070307/96d08420/attachment.html