Dear Reader,
Earlier this week in The Guardian, Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett wrote a contentious article about book ownership. Originally, the article’s title was “Reading is precious. But the cult of book ownership can be smug and middle-class,” which filled me with instinctive revulsion before I even opened the article. This title came from a section about a poster that “bears the slogan: ‘THAT’S WHAT I DO, I READ BOOKS, I DRINK TEA AND I KNOW THINGS.’ Apologies if you own this poster, but to me it encapsulates everything that is smug and middle class about the cult of book ownership.” I instinctively recoiled at this quote, partially because I do read books, drink tea, and know things (two or three things, at least).1 I’m no better than a poster! I took issue with the idea that book ownership is “smug,” “middle-class,” or “a cult.” Can’t a book collection enhance our reading habits?
Since then, the title has changed to “Reading is precious – which is why I’ve been giving away my books,” which is a more accurate encapsulation of Cosslett’s overall message. I think some of the initial reaction lacked reading comprehension (ironically), particularly because Cosslett clarifies a specific distinction between owning books and reading books. Additionally, while she does cast some absurd aspersions on the overall concept of book ownership, she mostly writes about her own personal choice to get rid of books. I do agree that owning a collection of books doesn’t equal an actual identity,2 but this really isn’t a major attitude among the general public. In recent years, I’ve felt increasingly disconcerted with the online emphasis on collecting new books. It was a mistake for Cosslett to focus on existing book collections rather than new book purchases. In doing so, the article omitted a few major issues.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Letters From a Moonstruck Bookworm to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.