Degrees of Affection

*1.8 Stars*

Scorecard: (Out of 10)
* Quality of Writing - 2
* Pace - 2
* Plot development - 1
* Characters - NA
* Enjoyability - 1
* Insightfulness - 1
* Ease of Reading - 1
* Photos/Illustrations - 10
Final Score = 18/80; 23%

Never, NEVER have I suffered through a book as hard as I did this one. This book...'it crushed my dreams, it crushed them so hard.'

*The Gush*

Not to say it was all bad. I did learn things from each of the chapters. For more details on what stood out to me in each one, check out my updates, which correspond to a chapter (or so) a piece.

There is...little I have to write here, so instead I wanted to list a couple of quotes that I really enjoyed (and as I plan to never read this again, this will be my only way of remembering them).

De Bury's book Philobiblion "meaning 'the love of books,' included chapter titles such as: 'That the Treasure of Wisdom is Chiefly Contained in Books'; The Degree of Affection That Is Properly Due to Books...'" (p 70) Best title EVER!

(And the source of my name on Booklikes!)

Some of my favorites quotes about books are the following.

Erasmus - "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." AMEN!

Sir Francis Bacon - "Some books are to be tasted; others swallowed; and some few to be chewed and digested." I would add that some are meant to be barely choked down with lots of will power.

And finally there is Bartholini - "Without books, God is silent, justice dormant, natural science at a stand, philosophy lame, letters dumb, and all things involved in darkness." (p. 81)

 

Also there is the Italian proverb, "There is no worse robber than a bad book" which I quite liked. And thought thoroughly appropriate for this book. (p. 132)

The book was littered with facts and trivia I'd never learned, particularly concerning the history of libraries on a Global scale. I learned a decent amount but, well read on. Read on.

*The Rant* (Warning: this will be long)

Let me state that I slogged through this book. It took me a month but it felt ten times longer. This, I believe, comes from two somewhat interconnected issues with this book.

First is the issue I labeled Poor structure/jumping interest/where are the library facts?. The best way to illustrate the first part of this is with the simple fact that I should have got this read in at most five days. Instead, it took on average two+ days simply to get through one chapter. I would then have to tuck it away and come back to it after reading something else. When you consider that very few pages did not contain at minimum one inserted picture and no chapter did not contain at least one full page illustration, that is inexcusable. This was largely due to fact that the pacing, segues between facts, and the basic structure of the writing itself were, in my opinion, barely adequate at bast.

The information was for the most part very interesting but getting it was an uphill battle. The author further seemed to leap from one thought to another almost like a mountain goat jumping between peaks. There was no explanation, no lead in; it seemed like he bundled thing into a rough chronological order and then shook them and wrote as the pieces fell. It was disjointed and difficult to follow how any of it fit into the larger theme other then...and, its a LIBRARY! Further, the books themselves were discussed far more than the physical libraries or the people who worked tirelessly to build up the collections and figured out ways to catalog them. There are other sources on the history of the book, that is not this works purpose.

The second point is I believe the real reason for the above and the other parts of the rant: Write what you KNOW. This is a maxim that authors do their worse when they forget. The author's blurb states he specializes in American History...and why over half the book has nothing to do with America! This should be a good thing, learning the history beyond the US's often blinkered view of the rest of the world (particularly noticeable in how WW I and II are taught) except for the fact that the author's less then complete comprehension of most of the subject matter shows desperately throughout most of the book. Indeed, I'd despaired of the writer's competency until Ch. 10, when his knowledge clearly caught up with the topic. The chapter is close to actually being fun and interesting to read. That rapidly ended come the next chapter. This is not to say that people unfamiliar with a topic cannot write very competent works, but it seemed that where ever he got his information did not give him insight into the weight of importance of any of it. There are paragraphs on some random fact that means little and then next to nothing on a person who is essential to the history of Library Science.

My second major issue with this book again comes from two separate yet interconnected sources.

*Sigh*...OK, I hoped for a lot from this book. This was clearly not meant solely for Library Science Majors; this was written at least partly for any book/library lover who's ever wondered "how and why". I wasn't expecting technical, boring history but rather something that would interest the average person. This...kinda does that but by some, in my mind, underhanded tricks. The first is by playing up biases. I won't go into detail on this because it would take up a review itself. Suffice it to say, what the author focuses on and what he doesn't is very...interesting. He pushes his bias and agendas by ignoring large bits of history and focusing solely on negative aspects that promote solely his views.

Further, even though this is a 'popular' history work, one would expect some notations of where he got his information. I was not expecting detailed footnotes (thought those would have been nice) but even a list at the back of the book listing the source and page where the information was used would have been nice. Instead we have a Sources column that is tiny, which number with no corresponding placement in the text and most come from a Wiki. This may be my History Major coming out but wikis are great for general information but not for a printed text on history. I'm sorry, but no. (Other reviews note this as well.)

The second issue is the biggest problem other then the basic structure of the book. In my opinion, it renders this text largely useless as a source of information. I speak of Fire.

Ok, yes, fire is the big bad of books, it's the boogie man and every librarian has a thing against any open flame. And that does not take into account purposeful burnings of books because of their information and the burner's thoughts about them. Terrible thing, terrible losses of books, I get that and it is something that should be covered. However, this is the history of the LIBRARY not THE BOOK. There are more important things to cover than every single instance of burning books in human history. By the third chapter, I could predict when another burning was coming up. I think I could create a drinking game base around 'take a drink when a book/library burning occurs'. You'd be drunk before reaching chapter 3. (That late number is only because of the clay consistency of the first 'books'.)

Fire and burning also took up places that should have held other info; the reader is actually denied pertinent data to be given the 'continuing story' of the burning of books. The book became sensationalism at the cost of...the information the entire book is suppose to be about. I will end with an illustration of just how bad this hammering on fire became. It came to a head in chapter 12 when the text read thus: "Due to Allied Bombing, it cost Japan heavily in loss of many...LIBRARIES!?" (The emphasis is my own insert.) I had to read that statement several times before I realized that it did indeed say what I feared it said. As sad as losing libraries is, I think the Japanese were more focused on the LIVES THEY LOST! I find this incredibly offensive.

*Conclusion*

I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. If you must, check out the pictures which are rather good. But if you are interested in the history of the Library, this simply does not live up to that statement. Between the mishmash of facts, the over blowing of the importance of facts, and the less then stellar writing leaves this a poor choice to read.

On the plus side, it has lovely pictures! (as every other review mentions)