Any avid reader would want to have his own library. It would be filled with books that he spent long hours devouring and rereading because he just could not get enough of the story. There are readers who want to preserve the beauty of their books, to make them look brand-new for as long as they can. There are those, however, who want to write on their books, highlight passages, and maybe dog-ear or flag a couple of pages that they thought were interesting or that impacted them so much. I belong to the second group.
I believe that annotating one’s book does not degrade its quality as some people think. Instead, it makes it even more valuable. A pristine copy of a book could be bought anywhere. If you become famous someday and historians would go through your library, they would want to know what you thought of the books that are in there. They would want to know which paragraphs you liked and which ones you hated. This is why I think manuscripts are more valuable than the finished copy. The finished copies are sold by the thousands while the manuscript is priceless. Museums preserve the original text, not a copy that millions of people can own (except in cases where it is the oldest copy they could find and the manuscript is nowhere to be found). With manuscripts, you get to see the mistakes the writer made. You get to see the deleted passages that would have changed the whole story. What if instead of Holden Caulfield, J. D. Salinger originally wanted to have a female prostitute for The Catcher in the Rye and you got to see it? Isn’t it more exciting that seeing his own unannotated finished copy that his publisher gave him?
A manuscript is valuable in the same way that annotated books are. It makes the book more personal. You’re leaving your mark. Literally. I bought copies of second-hand books before that were annotated. In one book, the previous owner wrote “Haha” on the side. I found myself laughing at that same passage myself, which made me feel like someone else—a friend—was laughing with me. I like it when I buy books that are highlighted or underlined because (1) they are almost always cheaper and (2) I get to feel like I’m not alone while I read. The exception would be when the previous owner annotated too much that it leaves no space for my own notes. That’s just selfish, Previous Owner. Anyway, when it comes to nonfiction books, I write out brief summaries of the ideas that were discussed. It is to help me remember them more easily and to write the ideas in my own words just to see if I understood what the author wanted me to understand.
It annoys me whenever I read a book and forget to bring a highlighter with me. The reading process seems to be lacking something. I feel like I’m not reading correctly. Don’t get me wrong, though. I don’t annotate all of my books. It’s just the ones that I think are worthy of annotating. For example, I don’t highlight mystery stories that are almost always plot-driven. They rarely have any highlight-worthy lines. I do write in them sometimes, noting the style the author used that made a certain scene thrilling and the techniques he used to mask the identity of some people to give the reader a surprise later on.
I understand why some people would want to keep their books in the same condition as they bought them. But in my humble opinion, annotated books are more awesome!
Challenge for today
Get a highlighter and start rereading and highlighting a favorite book. If you regret it in the end, don’t blame me. This is a challenge, not a command. (Washes hands in front of the people Pontius Pilate style)
What do you think about annotating your books?
It's a Ping Thing 