Would you still read books if you were the last person alive?

[ladderandbucket]

I recently read an interview with Thomas Ligotti where he said:

"If the world ended tomorrow, and I were the last person left alive, I think I would continue to enjoy the works of Borges. They would still seem relevant to me, even in a world without other people."

This got me wondering if I would still enjoy reading in a world without other people, and if not then why not? I can't decide. Does a book have to be relevant in order to have any value?

[Pompey Bum]

Hey, L&B! Long time. :) It's an interesting question. Cormac McCarthy addresses it briefly in The Road. At one point when the man and his son are picking their way through the ruins of a city, they come upon a library. The man reflects for a moment that it has become an indifferent place because libraries (and presumably books) are inherently promises to the future. But to answer your question directly: if I was in that situation, the I imagine I would be too busy trying to keep myself alive to worry much about books. But if everything was provided for (or if I found leisure from the struggle), sure, you bet.

[AuntShecky]

This was actually a premise for a "Twilight Zone" episode starring Burgess Meredith. The title is "Time Enough at Last."

[Leopard]

I'd probably commit suicide if I were the last person alive, but assuming I wouldn't, I guess I'd still be reading books. :D

[Pompey Bum]

This was actually a premise for a "Twilight Zone" episode starring Burgess Meredith. The title is "Time Enough at Last."

That episode came up a few months ago in an interesting discussion about irony:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?85501-An-Accurate-Definition-of-Irony&highlight=Irony

[ladderandbucket]

Hey, L&B! Long time. :) It's an interesting question. Cormac McCarthy addresses it briefly in The Road. At one point when the man and his son are picking their way through the ruins of a city, they come upon a library. The man reflects for a moment that it has become an indifferent place because libraries (and presumably books) are inherently promises to the future. But to answer your question directly: if I was in that situation, the I imagine I would be too busy trying to keep myself to worry much about books. But if everything was provided for (or if I found leisure from the struggle), sure, you bet.

Hey Pompey Bum, nice to be remembered! That scene in The Road has stuck in my mind too. He says something like "the value of everything is predicated upon what is yet to come."

I expect I would still want to read for company and nostalgia but I would feel very differently about it. I guess I would feel differently about everything though.

[Pompey Bum]

Hey Pompey Bum, nice to be remembered! That scene in The Road has stuck in my mind too. He says something like "the value of everything is predicated upon what is yet to come."

I don't buy it, personally. I think things and people have an inherent value, even those long forgotten. But that character was all about delivering his son to some kind of future. It's a really moving novel, especially the ending.

[Bajerox]

I think reading books as the last person alive sounds wonderful. I personally immerse myself in books so I'd be fully into it, not thinking about the fact that noone else is there.

[lifeisart]

I think i would totally read books. When you do not have anyone around, it sounds the best choice. Also, maybe those books will give me some ideas about what to do.
For example, David Thoreuo - Walden would be good choice to read in that case! They will give you reasons to live when you're the only person in the world.

[ennison]

If the last person thought there might still be others somewhere then he or she would want to survive. And if there's no one to tell how to salt that antelope/ sheep /side of beef then he / she will need to read it somewhere. If the last person thought he she was the very last person then he she may as well sit and read

[bounty]

im reminded of the position of martin luther was supposedly said (greatly paraphrased) "if the world were to go to pieces tomorrow, I would still plant an apple tree today"---which I take to imply that there is still something good and right in the activity itself, regardless of the promise of tomorrow.

although heck, I suppose I should go find the actual context of that quote before I go saying something definitive like that!

id still read yes...

[Lendo]

I would. I read books because i love it. Because what good writers do with language, words and styles it's an art, a majestic art.

[Scheherazade]

I feel I might end up reading even more if there were no one else around: Fewer distractions and great way to keep one occupied. Often helps me fight stress and depression (defence mechanism/escapism, whatever you feel like calling it)

[Vota]

Yes. I would continue to read.

[fajfall]

Having spent a week on an isolated Malaysian tropical island with NOONE to talk to, without a pen or even a book, I became so bored I started conversations with myself. A book is a form of conversation with someone else and with absolute certainty I'd read more if I had no one to talk to.

I think anyone who philosophises that reading would lose meaning lacks life experience, based on my own life experience.

[jay20]

If I did not kill myself, the only thing to do would be to read. The better question is: what would you read? I think I would read all the really long classics that I currently ignore.

[Bookman12]

I would definitely still be reading, yes!