94% of Norwegians consider it a democratic
right to have a public library
in their district. Nevertheless only half
of the population actually use libraries,
although the nearer one lives to a
library appears to enhance its value. At
present the political climate in Norway
favours cutbacks, leading to shorter
opening hours and the closure of
branch libraries. For the last few years
local politicians have tried to close
down my old neighbourhood library in
the east of Oslo, the city’s workingclass
district. Now at last they seem to
be on the verge of succeeding.
However, I no longer live among the
grey, high-rise buildings on that side of
the city. I now reside in the west of
Oslo, where the price per square foot of
living space continues to go through
the roof. In fact, I live only 100 metres
from my local library, an excellent
branch that nobody plans to close
down. During the nine years since
moving here I have used this library
only twice. On neither occasion did I
borrow a book.
Is this because I don’t read books? That
would be a fine thing for a writer,
wouldn’t it? Or is it perhaps because I
either buy or am presented with so
many books that I don’t need to borrow?
Well, that’s partly true, but I have
to confess to other reasons. I simply
don’t feel comfortable in a library.
I count myself most definitely among
the 94% who look upon a local library
as a democratic right. I want people to
borrow books and to read them.My
own and those of other writers. However,
that is precisely where the problem
lies. Visiting a library brings
home to me how many books there are
by other writers. Thousands of them.
Rows upon rows. Shelf after shelf. Billions
of words.
Last year almost 700 children’s books
were published in Norway. Two of
them were written by me. In a library I
discover how many other books have
been published during the last few
decades. It’s all very depressing. Does
the world really need more books?
Aren’t we just recycling all the old
stories? Is it possible that the sentence
I wrote and was so pleased with this
morning can be found in one of these
other books? Should I even bother to
write any more of my own?
Fortunately society changes. New generations
need the old stories to be
updated. I can remember books where
the plot required somebody getting to
the nearest telephone kiosk as quickly
as possible. Today everybody has a
mobile.
My thanks go also to GameBoy, the
Internet, new car models, another
generation of popstars, fresh slang
expressions and weird fashions in
clothes. Things such as these make my
books new and the others old.
However, whenever I make a reference
to a mobile telephone or a well-known
brand of jeans, I realise at the same
time that my own story will seem dated
after a few years. Slang expressions
have never changed as quickly as now.
Multicultural influences are producing
a kind of ‘kebab’ Norwegian. Foreign
words fuse with Norwegian to make
completely new and constantly
changing words and expressions, many
with a limited geographical distribution.
I myself once used an old Norwegian
schoolboy expression “to coconut
someone”, meaning to rub very hard
on another pupil’s head with a
clenched fist. In Oslo the children
knew what I was talking about, but
further north, for example in Trondheim,
they still ask me what it means.
I hear, however, that its use is catching
on in Trondheim, so now I have the
doubtful honour of having spread that
particular word.
Of course, a lot of contemporary
writing reminds me of something I
have read before, just as Hollywood
makes film after film according to a
century-old formula and music is
recycled and repackaged. Same shit,
new wrapping, as some people say.
Others may even argue that all story
lines can be traced back to Homer,
Shakespeare or the Bible.
So is it still possible to write stories
that give no hint of something read
before?
It would appear so. I read quite a lot of
new books and the originality of some
is often quite impressive. An interesting
mixture of genres or a plot constantly
twisting and turning can still offer a
surprise or two.
This brings us back, however, to the
depressing aspect of libraries. I may
think I have succeeded in being original
but how does that help, if my
work drowns in a flood of other writers’
books? What makes it even worse
is that I no longer need to visit a library
in order to suffer this depression.
I can click onto a web site and immediately
see which libraries have my books
on their shelves. Initially this may remind
me how privileged I am to have
achieved a relatively high lending rate,
but further searching can quickly reveal
that none of my books figure among
the top 100 borrowings of the last
month. Damn you, Harry Potter.
There was a time when writers used a
library to carry out their research. Now
we have the Internet. One day I may
have written so many books that I can
conquer my library phobia and perhaps
borrow a couple of novels or a
biography. For the time being, however,
and on behalf of the 46% who
support but do not use libraries,
I can only say that we admire those
who do. They are our heroes.
Translated by Eric Deverill