What is it about something seemingly so simple as the book that has so many scholars up in arms about every aspect of it ranging from the historical aspect, the literary importance, and its bibliographical significance. I was hoping to get some enlightenment after reading Howsam's book, and although I clearly found way more information than I expected to find in such a "little book", I came away sadly disappointed. I felt as if Howsam's desire to remain as fair as possible prevented her from truly submitting any of the disciplines to a deeper degree of critical analysis and this made the reader -or at least me anyways- feel as if they had just been given a brief summary of all of the aspects that make "the book" great as opposed to a truly meaningful insight as to why. Still, one must give credit to Howsam for how she manages to bring a balance between the different methods and make everything that creates "the book" flow so seemingly smoothly. It almost seems from the way Howsam has arranged her book and her arguments that she has a deep respect for all of the different aspects of "the book" and wishes for a happy, albeit perhaps elementary approach, of "Can't we all just get along?"
One thing which Howsam said which really had my attention was "In the material sense the book is of course everywhere in historical study, the the book in the sense of being a vehicle for thinking about the past is just coming into its own" (PG 46). I found her approach to thinking of the book as something which has its own story and history very refreshing. It was very interesting to think about the book's place in history for the first time as opposed to the book merely being the tool which records it.
The one thing that was somewhat strange to me was Howsam's use of end notes as opposed to the more commonplace footnotes and although she explained this was done so as to not overburden the text, I almost found it ironic since she pegs the bibliographical discipline of "the book" as being so important, yet her end notes made reading quite difficult and distracting at times.
Although I found the reading dry for the majority of the book, I give Howsam credit for being able to write a book on "the book" and realize that this is a difficult topic to make riveting and this book was able to at least inform me as to certain aspects of the book which I had never considered before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agreed with your comment "Howsam's desire to remain as fair as possible prevented her from truly submitting any of the disciplines to a deeper degree of critical analysis". "being fair"is an excellent way of describing what I felt Howsam was trying to do, which in turn left for a very dry, repetitive read where too much was crammed in without allowing any dept. Despite all this, however, I was still able to gain an eye opener to a history and process that I never bothered to give much thought to in the past.
ReplyDeleteWow, you just smacked me in the face with what a bad scholar I am, and far from being upset about it, I'd like to thank you.
ReplyDeleteI did not read the endnotes.
I really can't say more than that. I have no defense, no reason why I didn't read them, only a vague notion that they weren't important enough to be bothered with, being, as I assumed, only a bibliography of sorts, citing where her quotes originated. After all, Howsam is not a Penguin Classic, where the endnotes tell you something about the period, setting, or author of a work of literature. This is Howsam - just another scholarly paper printed for mass consumption.
And I couldn't have been more wrong. Even with a quick glance, I can see that the endnotes include descriptions to theories and important facts which I so blatantly overlooked. Indeed, I might even go so far to say that by ignoring the endnotes, I'm ignoring Howsam's very point in writing 'Old Books and New Histories.' If we are to look at "the book" in all its many transmutations and from all the disciplines it touches, then we very well can't ignore any part of it.
And though the bibliophiles of yesteryear might be rolling over in their graves, I can at least say that I recognize my dumb mistake.
Like many others, disappointment is a word that entered my mind after reading "Old Books and New Histories", but being the student that I am, I don't usually jump into an assigned text expecting to be riveted. I think that the way she attempted to speak about "the book" in such a broad sense, seemingly trying not to hurt anyone's feelings, made the reading even tougher to grasp. There's a whole lot of words and one comes away as though he or she hasn't read anything. I understand better now the study of book history in that it is very broad and requires knowledge of many disciplines. I think that Howsam's book could have been summarized by my last sentence, and she would have saved herself a lot of time.
ReplyDeleteYour close reading and the fact that you actually read the endnotes attests to you being an attentive reader and should signal all of us to emulate your habits, as far as thats concerned. Sadly, I too did not read them and maybe it would have enhanced my experience.