A Moronic Protest
I’m all for protests but this is asinine. Tom Wayne, a used bookstore owner, is protesting the public’s decline in reading by…burning books. Here’s the article. The beginning goes like this:
Tom Wayne amassed thousands of books in a warehouse during the 10 years he has run his used book store, Prospero’s Books. His collection ranges from best sellers like Tom Clancy’s “The Hunt for Red October” and Tom Wolfe’s “Bonfire of the Vanities,” to obscure titles like a bound report from the Fourth Pan-American Conference held in Buenos Aires in 1910. But wanting to thin out his collection, he found he couldn’t even give away books to libraries or thrift shops, which said they were full. So on Sunday, Wayne began burning his books protest what he sees as society’s diminishing support for the printed word.
Some guy in the article points out that burning books is the perfect way to protest a lack of interest in books. My view: Tom Wayne is an absolute moron. You do not burn books. Ever. The only possible exception is if you’re in a The Day After Tomorrow scenario and it’s a matter of survival. Even then, burn the damn chairs and other wood products before you reach for the tax code and a match.
Tom Wayne’s solution strikes too close to the other morons out there who burn books as a means of protecting the rest of us poor pitiful people from our potential bad reading choices. Because the books are so offensive and will harm our little minds. Books like Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Yeah, heaven forbid we teach kids about the bonds of friendship, self-reliance and inner strength. How dare you J.K. Rowling!
I refuse to believe that no one wants these books. At least once a week I see a request on writing loops or in the paper to send books to the troops or to shelters or to anywhere else where people can’t afford books or don’t have easy access to them. Tom Wayne should try that avenue. Burning books doesn’t make a point, unless the point he’s trying to make is that he’s a complete moron.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Helen, bookstores such as Borders, Barnes and Noble, and Half Price Books destroy thousands of books a month without so much as a whimper of outrage from people like yourself. Bookstores destroy remaindered books everyday so they won’t have to ship them back to the publishers - including yours I imagine. Your indignation is cute but not much else. Tom has started a dialogue about the importance of literacy in this country. You’d be well advised to join it.
Would you find a woodchipper less offensive?
May 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Dr. Zom - It’s a shame you could not find a way to express your argument without being condescending and somewhat sexist. Did you call men who disagreed with the act of burning books “cute” or was that just reserved for girlie little me? I wonder.
Since you don’t know me, even though you pretend to know how I feel about literacy and books, let’s skip the personal attacks and get to the heart of your support for this act of book burning. Your argument, while dramatic, is fundamentally flawed. Tom has not started a dialog on literacy. He has not done anything to further the cause of reading in America. He started an argument about Tom. He has joined the ranks of folks who burn books, and that is not a very attractive crowd with which to be associated.
If Tom wanted to make a statement and encourage people to read, he could have made a big deal about handing out all these books for free and getting these books into the hands of people who do not have them. He decided, instead, to make these books unavailable for all time. How does that further his agenda? Burning books - or shoving them in a woodchipper - as a way of saying we should all read more just does not make any sense. It amounts to a if-you-won’t-buy-these-from-me-then-I’ll-get-rid-of-them - ie, I’ll take my toys and go home - argument. Again, dramatic but not helpful. If someone can explain to me (without all the annoying “cute” references) how destroying books convinces people to read more, I’m ready to hear it. Honestly, I can’t find an ounce of logic in the argument. In my view, this bookstore did readers, authors and books a great disservice. People who love and honor the written word and want others to do the same should find ways to make their points without enlisting the tactics of those who approve of censoring the written word.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I agree with you 100%, HelenKay. There are women’s shelters, veteran’s hospitals & many other places to donate books to the needy that I think it’s a travesty to burn them. Heck, handing them out on the street would have been a much better solution! I think this guy is looking for publicity for *himself* rather than declining reading rates.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Helen, I called Tod Goldberg cute, too, so don’t worry about my alleged sexism. And you’re right about not resorting to personal attacks, like calling someone an “absolute moron”. That would be unkind.
Tom didn’t start a dialogue on literacy? Somebody’s talking. He’s been on the phone all day talking with CNN, BBC, CBC, Bogata, etc. The phone at the store has been ringing off the hook with people calling from all over the country - some pro, some con. The store has had offers from various agencies that may be better at getting books into prisons and hospitals, so that’s a good thing.
Hand out books for free? Good idea. Prospero’s has given thousands of books away over the years. In fact, Prospero’s leaves books out over night on the sidewalk shelves. And guess what? People don’t even steal them!
Perhaps Tom should have found another way to promote literacy? Aside from owning a bookstore that has been in business for ten years, running a small press, promoting readings and literary events and paying for storage on books no one wants? I’ll tell him to get on it.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Thanks Karen.
Dr. Zom - You are working very hard to justify the actions of this bookstore but you still do not say how burning a book will get people to read. Of course the bookstore has promoted literacy in the past. I can only assume that you are purposely not understanding what is at issue here when you take phrases out of context and then do the overly dramatic “I’ll tell him to get on it” crap. Again, your arguments would be more convincing if you spent a bit less time berating and being pithy and a bit more time explaining your argument.
The problem here is with this book burning act which, in my view, is irresponsible. I refrained from saying that or using harsher language in my original post in recognition of the fact these booksellers have provided an invaluable service over time. The problem - what is at issue - is with the owners’ current actions now. Everyone I know in this business donates books and promotes literacy. What they don’t do is promote book burning.
Through the continued condescension you have a basic premise that the calls from CNN et al prove this stunt worked. I disagree. I would argue that what Tom has brought attention to is the issue of book burning not literacy. Again, you don’t convince people to read by burning books. You convince people to read by giving them books and having them get invested in the same. I am greatly relieved to hear that agencies are calling asking for the books. I hope people are calling and offering to take books. But, really, doesn’t that undermine your argument? The fact people do want and need the books was my original point. This suggests that burning them is not a necessary evil as Tom would suggest.
I do wonder what Tom will say in the future when some fringe group out there gets offended by the contents of a book and burns it in a public display. Tom burned books for a cause he believed in. I guess it will be okay with him when others burn books for causes they believe in. That, in my view, is the underlying tragedy of this story. There is a message here that it’s okay to burn a book if you believe your base cause is a worthy one. Very scary.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:42 am
I agree that burning books is not the answer - so what if it gets attention for a little while - it will fade just like any other news story and once again this bookseller will be in the same position, and probably less understanding from those who truly love books. I think he’s accomplishing the exact opposite of what his intentions were - now those amazing books are gone forever.
I look at bookburning like I look at the burning of the flag - a desecration of something beautiful and sacred. You will never convince me that either act has meaning or is for a “good cause”. People use acts of violence to defend their actions - that doesn’t make them right - it only serves to give others the same excuse. It needs to stop.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Burning books is symbolic of intolerance. Whatever the justification or intent, the act itself speaks of fanatics, fear, hate. It doesn’t say pro-literacy to me.
Libraries and second-hand stores in the area might have been full, but those are only two of many outlets for book donations. Hospitals, women’s shelters, nursing homes, books for the troops drives, school libraries, homeless shelters are a handful of other options. I think making the time and effort–and it would likely take considerable of both–would have been a more positive statement, and a more appropriate symbol in support of literacy than a bonfire.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:55 am
…..for pete’s sake—send them to me–i’m on a limited income—and love books…….makes me sick to my stomach thinking someone would destroy books—even if they might loose a few dollars–or in a protest.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:17 am
I love Jackie’s answer - LOL.
Seriously, what a moron - I agree - burning books is NOT going to make people read.
There are so many vehciles to dispose of these books that would make so many people happy. By donating books instead of destroying, it might actually GET people to read or read more.
Very well put, Nora - maybe YOU should write a book! LOL.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Anoher thought - wondering if this book burning has contributed top pollution!
He could have also sold the books cheaply and donated the money to charity.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I’m just visiting, but I agree with the ridiculousness of burning books in order to protest illiteracy. The article mentioned that customers actually purchased books from the ones about to be burned (one fellow in particular purchased some antique children’s books), so I find it very hard to believe that people would not have accepted them for free. Even if I accepted burning books as a valid method to make people aware of the decline of literacy (which I don’t), how does it point towards or even encourage us to look for a solution?
June 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I would like to express my deepest thanks to everyone who made this website!
It would be a pleasure if you add url of your site to my link directory.