• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Atlas Shrugged,” one of the best-known college cult books there ever was, is a bit lonely these days. I saw a copy outside of the bookstore last week for the first time since fall quarter and got to wondering if the cult book phenomenon on college campuses is now limited to “The Da Vinci Code.”

The energy that “Atlas” generated in the early 1960s had an intellectual romance about it that the Harry Potter series can’t compete with. So, when dozens of cities launched campaigns several years ago to stir up a similar kind of enthusiasm in their own communities, I was optimistic.

Chicago’s public library made it famous by stacking its shelves with 2,000 extra copies of “To Kill a Mockingbird” and managing to convince the city to read them. Chicago’s selection in 2001, which coincided with a high school in Oklahoma banning “Mockingbird,” made headlines and inspired copycat programs across the country.

In Chicago, it worked. People on the subway would spontaneously talk to strangers about Atticus Finch. Or, conversation was sparked in organized groups, sponsored by both independent bookstores and large chains. The idea that a single, secular book could transcend race in a city like Chicago suggested it could be done anywhere else.

So when Los Angeles decided to join the “One Book, One City” trend in 2002, I actually felt a twinge of true affection for a place that might be more famous for its pornos than its paperbacks.

It started off well, anyway. Mayor James Hahn picked “Fahrenheit 451,” typed by Ray Bradbury in the basement of Powell library. Hahn called it one of his favorite books, and remarked that by reading “great literary works” through this campaign, Los Angeles might develop “a community that’s unmatched by any in this great nation.”

And then, this year, he picked “Seabiscuit: An American Legend.”

Unlike Chicago, which uses the quality of writing as its first criterion for book selection and which ultimately trusts the library to make the final decision, Los Angeles leaves it up to Hahn alone.

So what was he thinking?

“He liked the story of the underdog horse that became a winner. It was really an inspiring story,” says a library spokesman.

The dubious association of the non-fiction “Seabiscuit” with “great literary works” notwithstanding, “One Book, One City L.A.” isn’t working quite right. No one’s talking about it on public transit. The only copy in Powell is still sitting on the shelf. City libraries are offering discussion groups, but they’re screening the movie as well. According to Amazon.com, Seabiscuit is more popular in Sacramento and San Francisco than in the southland.

The problem in Los Angeles is that the city has taken a hands-off approach to building a thoughtful, literate community. As far as encouraging any meaningful debate, the 10-point list of discussion questions posted to the library’s Web site (actually just a link to Random House online) doesn’t cut it. Hahn’s selection last year, “The House on Mango Street,” had the potential to get people talking about the meaning of community, but there wasn’t even a buzz. Even the media isn’t taking this seriously anymore: The Los Angeles Times informed its readers last month with a 99-word, byline-less blurb.

But for all its faults, at least it’s something. Sure, talking about “The Da Vinci Code” and Harry Potter just isn’t the same as Boo Radley. And yes, it’s easy to make “only in L.A.” remarks about the mayor choosing a book-turned-movie. But then again, “Mockingbird” won three Oscars and it was a pretty good pick.

Literacy has to be taken seriously, even outside of the ivory tower, and if we’re not going to have an “Atlas” to care about, connecting with the city outside of Hollywood might be a good alternative. Even if Hahn just wants to read about horses.

E-mail cjenkins@media.ucla.edu if you know John Galt.