I am sad that someone can apparently consider this to be a large amount.
But I am only twenty-four, and these all belong to me! Also, it’s definitely a large amount because I haven’t read most of them. Buying more books than you can read is bad, I should stop it.
Public libraries are incredibly cool. Not only do you get books for free, as many as you want. When you’re done you can return the books to the library and they will store them for you so you eliminate clutter!
I’ve finished classifing them in UDC in an excel file, but once they and the shelves are properly labeled, it will signal “these books are for research” and “this guy is a nerd”.
And while a large part of the titles is fiction, the largest part of the economic value, and, most importantly, in the expected time spent is either school-related books (for example, Introduction to Heat Transfer, by Frank M. White or Digital Signall Processing, by John G. Proakis), which are in the €60 price range or more, talk-about-one—topic-in-depth books (like Christian Salmon’s Storytelling, or Gavin Weightman’s Industrial Revolutionaries, or Daniel Canehman’s Thinking, fast and slow), which tend to be in the €20 to €30 price range.
Really, buying a book might be somehow like buying a stock option; you buy the right to spend a resource (time and effort) on a book at your own leisure, rather than being constrained by the duty to give it back, or limits on how many you can take at once. And, when your time is valuable, the expected expense in time can have a dramatically larger value than the preliminary expense in coin… This would be an interesting topic to tackle...
I find that the internet is generally better indexed, though I suppose that if you can afford it, a large enough private library could give more easily accessible depth. I also suspect that, like me, most people here with many more books than they have read have libraries that are composed mostly of fiction, which is less useful for research purposes.
I don’t buy fiction anymore, unless it’s by Terry Pratchett or if it’s Classics I Should Have Read Already, like stuff by Asimov or Dostoievsky, but those are usually extremely cheap if not free. No, I have my plate full with fanfiction, especially pony fics. I just can’t keep up...
Buying more books than you can read is bad, I should stop it.
And yet it’s a vice that many enjoy, I’m surely one of them, but I remember at least three quotes about buying books, of which only these I can attribute with certainty:
“When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes.” (Erasmus of Rotterdam)
“When I think of all the books still left for me to read, I am certain of further happiness.” (Jules Renard)
Erasmus lived a generation after the invention of printing, but books still cost a lot relative to people’s incomes back then because he lived too near the beginning of the experience curve in book production. He probably had highly developed mnemonic skills to memorize books in libraries.
Around a year ago I designated a shelf just for books I hadn’t read yet, so that when I felt like reading I had a very obvious place to go. It seems to help with the buying-things-and-not-reading-them bit.
(currently I’m reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
The bad news is that over time you are likely to find that your to-read bookshelf grows until it turns into a to-read bookcase, then multiple to-read bookcases. The good news is that you are unlikely to run out of interesting things to read.
One of the reasons I hope for Transhuman brain enhancements is the ability to read books fast enough that I can finish my perpetually-growing and increasingly-menacing personal library in my lfetime.
I have a general proof that people who like reading will never get caught up.
Any technological improvement which makes it possible to read and understand faster will also make it possible to write faster.
That isn’t a proof. It is easily possible for a technoloical improvement to reading accompanying a technological improvement to writing speed to result in catching up. Diminishing writing speed related returns on reading speed improvement for example...
Ok, it isn’t a perfect proof. However, what are the odds (considering how many people are writing compared to any specific reader) that increasing reading speed will enable writers to research, proofread, copy edit, and revise faster?
I leave the possibility open that proofreading and copy editing will be neglected, but I think research and revising are enough to matter.
Ok, it isn’t a perfect proof. However, what are the odds (considering how many people are writing compared to any specific reader) that increasing reading speed will enable writers to research, proofread, copy edit, and revise faster?
Nearly certain, but the point is that even outright assuming certainty doesn’t lead to the conclusion. Odds aren’t the issue, relative degree of improvement is. For example if writing_time is equal to some multiple of reading_time plus a ‘creative effort’ constant and reading speed improves sufficiently then someone will be able to read all of the books despite a drastically and ongoing increase in books written.
I am sad that someone can apparently consider this to be a large amount.
Home ec was not an elective where I went to school; three hours a week, and you didn’t bring a lunch that day—you ate what you cooked.
But I am only twenty-four, and these all belong to me! Also, it’s definitely a large amount because I haven’t read most of them. Buying more books than you can read is bad, I should stop it.
Public libraries are incredibly cool. Not only do you get books for free, as many as you want. When you’re done you can return the books to the library and they will store them for you so you eliminate clutter!
Where did you get that idea? Read “How to Justify a Private Library” by Umberto Eco, summarized here.
They’re excellent for signalling purposes, too.
I’ve finished classifing them in UDC in an excel file, but once they and the shelves are properly labeled, it will signal “these books are for research” and “this guy is a nerd”.
And while a large part of the titles is fiction, the largest part of the economic value, and, most importantly, in the expected time spent is either school-related books (for example, Introduction to Heat Transfer, by Frank M. White or Digital Signall Processing, by John G. Proakis), which are in the €60 price range or more, talk-about-one—topic-in-depth books (like Christian Salmon’s Storytelling, or Gavin Weightman’s Industrial Revolutionaries, or Daniel Canehman’s Thinking, fast and slow), which tend to be in the €20 to €30 price range.
Really, buying a book might be somehow like buying a stock option; you buy the right to spend a resource (time and effort) on a book at your own leisure, rather than being constrained by the duty to give it back, or limits on how many you can take at once. And, when your time is valuable, the expected expense in time can have a dramatically larger value than the preliminary expense in coin… This would be an interesting topic to tackle...
I find that the internet is generally better indexed, though I suppose that if you can afford it, a large enough private library could give more easily accessible depth. I also suspect that, like me, most people here with many more books than they have read have libraries that are composed mostly of fiction, which is less useful for research purposes.
I don’t buy fiction anymore, unless it’s by Terry Pratchett or if it’s Classics I Should Have Read Already, like stuff by Asimov or Dostoievsky, but those are usually extremely cheap if not free. No, I have my plate full with fanfiction, especially pony fics. I just can’t keep up...
And yet it’s a vice that many enjoy, I’m surely one of them, but I remember at least three quotes about buying books, of which only these I can attribute with certainty:
“When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes.” (Erasmus of Rotterdam)
“When I think of all the books still left for me to read, I am certain of further happiness.” (Jules Renard)
The invention of the internet might have changed his priorities.
Erasmus lived a generation after the invention of printing, but books still cost a lot relative to people’s incomes back then because he lived too near the beginning of the experience curve in book production. He probably had highly developed mnemonic skills to memorize books in libraries.
Around a year ago I designated a shelf just for books I hadn’t read yet, so that when I felt like reading I had a very obvious place to go. It seems to help with the buying-things-and-not-reading-them bit.
(currently I’m reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
The bad news is that over time you are likely to find that your to-read bookshelf grows until it turns into a to-read bookcase, then multiple to-read bookcases. The good news is that you are unlikely to run out of interesting things to read.
That last actually aggravates me. There are way more interesting things to read than I have time for. I always feel like I’m Missing Something.
One of the reasons I hope for Transhuman brain enhancements is the ability to read books fast enough that I can finish my perpetually-growing and increasingly-menacing personal library in my lfetime.
I have a general proof that people who like reading will never get caught up.
Any technological improvement which makes it possible to read and understand faster will also make it possible to write faster.
That isn’t a proof. It is easily possible for a technoloical improvement to reading accompanying a technological improvement to writing speed to result in catching up. Diminishing writing speed related returns on reading speed improvement for example...
Ok, it isn’t a perfect proof. However, what are the odds (considering how many people are writing compared to any specific reader) that increasing reading speed will enable writers to research, proofread, copy edit, and revise faster?
I leave the possibility open that proofreading and copy editing will be neglected, but I think research and revising are enough to matter.
Nearly certain, but the point is that even outright assuming certainty doesn’t lead to the conclusion. Odds aren’t the issue, relative degree of improvement is. For example if writing_time is equal to some multiple of reading_time plus a ‘creative effort’ constant and reading speed improves sufficiently then someone will be able to read all of the books despite a drastically and ongoing increase in books written.
do not want