Books versus Food
The discussion about reading took an interesting turn tonight when Sooz groaned, “Gosh, not the discussion about how librarians should read all the time again” and the Redhead suddenly said something like, “I think I need books more than I need food.” Her devotion to reading is quite admirable, but I think I side with food. Where are your loyalties?
July 9th, 2004 at 5:04 pm
I vote for books. After all, you can eat a book if you get really hungry but there’s not much reading to be done on most foods. Maybe they should serialize classic books on cereal boxes.
July 9th, 2004 at 6:14 pm
I’m going with food. I eat about 3 times a day. I think maybe I’m addicted.
July 9th, 2004 at 7:10 pm
If it’s a particularly good book, I wouldn’t be able to eat it because of the guilt factor. Something like the last copy of the Book of Kells? No way. I’d starve.
July 10th, 2004 at 1:10 am
Sorry but I vote for books. I can find a book (a survival guide, for example) that gives me guidance on hunting, foraging and so on. And, as Christina pointed out, if all else fails, I can eat the book. Food, however, cannot provide intellectual nourishment.
Healthwise, I would probably be better off if I were reading more and eating less, right now, but that is another matter.
July 11th, 2004 at 1:17 am
After many long years of eating with a book/magazine/newspaper stuck in my face, I can hardly imagine eating without a book, unless it’s a social function (although by necessity, I must at times read without eating).