This is a peer response is to Beliana Krashi post which is titled books simply records of the past.  I agree with her statement that books are helpful for fundamental learning but only to a particular extent because as informative as books are, some types of writing can be considered a agreed upon opinion or written with a particular stances that is imposed on the reader. Historical textbooks can be considered one type of literature that can be written in a perspective that might not be fair or slightly bias to one side, a written depiction or record of what the winning side wanted told as there story. Emerson saids ‘books are more of a record of the past, records that “Each age… must write… or rather, each generation for the next succeeding.” This is true because now a days with so many different opinions and depictions of how a event occurs with the internet and social media it would be a lot more easy to finds one true version of a event or one that the reader finds true, before there weren’t as many outlets to write a version of a event that took place or so many possible opposing opinions that makes it a must to depict a event as accurate and unbiased as possible if you are writing about it. At one time books and literature were the only outlets for a person to learn and that can be used against the mass of people because it would be easy to impose a thought or idea through philosophical text, news papers and history books. This is why looking at books as records of the past and not completely take what we read as absolute is a better idea because then we can cone up with our own truths referencing the past and what we hold true.