Comments on: More Bookshelf Etiquette

By: Never teh Bride

Never teh Bride — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:37:18 +0000

I entirely agree, TeleriB. Imagine a library arranged in one of the ways the authors suggest? It would not even be worth trying to find one’s desired book!

By: TeleriB

TeleriB — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:28:30 +0000

“rearranging one’s bookshelves alphabetically is a bad mistake because alphabetization is apparently the most banal approach to bookshelving.”

…what?

I don’t alphabetize myself – I have a lot of nonfiction that I want to search for by topic and title. I couldn’t tell you who wrote most of the books I own. So, I group them by topic (and then the groupings are usually small enough to browse for title).

But my husband is a genre literature kind of guy. We estimate he’s got 3000 novels, mostly science fiction and alternate history. And when he wants a book, he does classify by author – he’s looking for “that new Harry Turtledove” or “one of my old Heinlein books.”

I alphabetized them once, two moves ago, but not since. And since they’re packed two deep on the shelves, it’s now impossible to find what you’re looking for except by blind luck or extended search.

Banal or not, we could find things if they were alpha by author.

By: Never teh Bride

Never teh Bride — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:33:32 +0000

I like it, Portside!

By: Portside

Portside — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:15:42 +0000

What about, the High Fidelity System?
Reorganize entire book collection on a random codified basis based on how out of control your life feels at that time. Also out of one’s desire for some sense of understanding of life and a higher pattern. All other organizing systems and combinations thereof are fair game.

FWIW, works great for DVD’s too…