I don't know what it is about some users of the public library who think it is acceptable to write in the books they borrow. Do they believe they are leaving helpful hints, or are they trying to big-note themselves by expressing an opinion on the book which they believe will impress other readers? Who knows, but it can be irritating to read that someone thought a book was 'a great read' when anyone can see it is a load of rubbish.
There seems to be a little cadre of readers in Tasmania who feed off each other. Some books have quite extensive lists of comments from would-be critics. Happily, they are usually limited to two or three words; when it gets to the stage of carefully argued descriptions of where the author went wrong, I'll give up borrowing.
I recently read 11.22.63 by Stephen King and, though it was not exactly great literature, it didn't deserve the damnimg comment by a previous reader: 'Just Awful.' Today, I'm reading a book by a Scottish author, James Oswald. It's harmless, but the sort of escapist nonsense I enjoy from time to time. At one point, the lead character drags a visitor into 'the lobby'. A previous reader has crossed out 'lobby', replacing if with 'hall'. Lobby has a particularly Scottish meaning - the common area in a tenement entrance, so he was right to correct it. However, not right to deface the book.
i looked up the Scottsh usage of 'lobby' and came across a great resource- a list of Scottish words and pronunciations. It's gold! Like many dictionaries, it gives examples of how words are used. 'Lerra' , for example, means 'leather', as in 'Ah looked so cool in mah latex shirt and mah lerra thong.'
I'm glad that's cleared up.
No comments:
Post a Comment