"Apart from those who color-coordinate their shelving, most of us don't think of books as part of our home's color scheme ..."

One need not group one's books by color in order to be aware of the color that books lend to a room, as these photos amply illustrate. I believe most of us DO recognize this.

I'm definitely one of "those who color-coordinates" her books :) To me it looks much more clean and given that I have a tendency to go for a very natural look in the home, the book spines are the major pop of color in my home.

These books on shelves add a really great look to a room. I have seen books in thrift stores, which have to be cheaper than the kind you buy in regular stores in the mall.
I'm gonna head out this weekend and get me some, and color-up some dead space in my tv room.
Great idea!

You're just going to buy books to look nice and fill up space? Don't you want to have books you like?

My first impression of people who color coordinate the majority of their books or otherwise display them so as to emphasize their looks over their content or authorship is "form over substance"--not a good thing, IMO.

OK I'm going to throw this out here...if a great book has a dumb ass cover, does anyone make a new cover for it? Or is it just me?

I suppose buying books just to decorate does seem a little odd--I've never done it--but I don't really see how its that different from buying a decorative bowl or plate. Just because you have dishes you don't use for food, it doesn't mean you're not into eating.

If you see a book with a really pretty cover at an antique store, but you're not interested in the content, why shouldn't you just buy it anyway, just to admire the cover?

#4 isn't in someone's home. It's an art project.

Chryss...I do.

mirandabee - yes! i hate the idea of colour-coordinating my books, they're books for god's sake, not decorative bowls, but i do appreciate the warmth they add to the room they're in.
i also find the idea of buying books to decorate with troubling. i love my books, i only keep the ones i have read and will re-read, and to me, buying books simply to pretty up your home seems shallow, like those empty spines people put up to look learned. yuck.

I'm with dcirene and others who do not color-coordinate books, and as a writer of sorts, I guess I have an issue with books as a decorative tool. Take care of them, arrange them nicely, have a good shelving system, that's the end of it. I feel the same about records and cds btw.

Okay – it seems like we can’t have a post on books without bringing up the book-by-color debate. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion on the aesthetic appeal (or lack thereof) in organizing books by color. What irks me every single time this debate comes up is the assumption that the detractors make that anyone who organizes this way

A) Doesn’t read their books,
B) Can’t locate their books
C) Has no respect for the content of their books

Some people think in color! We’re visual! It’s helpful and natural to organize by color! We read and re-read our books! We write book reviews! We work in bookstores! We’re bloggers, authors, researchers, and journalists! We have a deep and abiding love for the written word!

So please stop assuming that we’re all bubble headed rainbow lovers.

End of rant.

Buying books for the sake of filling up shelves with color is pure silliness, though I guess there are worst things on which to waste your money.

But I'll add that bookbindery is an art and there's nothing wrong with buying a beautifully-bound vintage or antique book to admire but not read (like out-of-date reference books).

Buying books with covers (colored or not) is a modern phenomenon.

Up until the eighteenth century books used to be stored with their spines to the wall and page edges showing, lightly marked in pen with the books' title. Then wealthy people got the idea of having books bound in matching embossed leather bindings to order of their own color choice. Regular people (who were the majority) who couldn't afford this rented books from circulating libraries and read them aloud en famille.

It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the idea of covering the bindings of books with handmade covers of whatever color one chooses -- rainbow or not.

But for true book lovers, arranging books by the color of their storebought covers, regardless of their content, is and will always be, a vulgarian travesty -- like the screeching of chalk on a chalkboard. Get used to it. You wouldn't put a toilet in the kitchen just because it's white and you happen to have a white kitchen. If you don't want to be considered an ignoramus then content must come first and color second. If not then prepare to take the consequences--ridicule and scorn.

I concur. Bookbinding is an art. Buying a book for the binding...I would do it.

And yes, there is a difference between filling up your shelves with color and buying a book for the binding! I couldn't have said it better.

I LOVE seeing my bookcases filled with books and organized just like a bookstore: fiction by author, and non-fiction by subject and author. It totally makes a room for me. I dream of having my own library with floor to ceiling built ins someday. I, therefore, am obviously in the color-coordinated books look silly camp. I buy a book for content, not how it looks on my shelf.

My husband told me there are stores where you can buy books in bulk (good looking books with nice binding) JUST to fill up a bookshelf in your home in order to look _________ (fill in the blank -- smart? decorated? fill up an empty shelf? I don't know). But evidently this is done a lot in these new "McMansion" homes because rooms and "libraries" are so huge that most people don't have enough books to fill them. Sad.

I love the look of the room in the first photo. So warm, I could easily curl up with a good book in that corner.

@monarda -- what qualifies you to say that content is the only way a true booklover may organize their books? I still have every book I've ever owned from childhood on, I worked in a bookstore for several years, I am currently working as a research assistant/ editor on a book that will be published next spring. My library is around 2K books, and I've read (and re-read) all but 30-40 of them.

I am a visual person, as I said before -- organizing by color is completely natural to me, because I remember every cover of every book I own. I may not remember however, whether I put the Narnia series with my fantasy books, my children’s books, or my religious books -- in a bookstore you'll find them in all three places, plus in the young adult fiction.

I know that my Narnia set is white – I go to the shelf with the white books, Voila. No hunting.

People are all different. Just because it's not how you would do it DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT PERFECTLY VALID.

I arrange my books alphabetically by author, giving no thought to the color of the spines. (Otherwise, I'd never find anything.) For me, the general "heft" and multi-colored punch that books give a room have always been enough from a decorating angle. But I have to say, although I own tattered, black and orange paperback copies of almost every book in the series, I've been sorely tempted by the pattern-inspired cloth-bound versions of the Penguin classics that came out last year. Now those are some spine-tinglingly pretty spines!

I live in a small NYC studio - 300 sq feet - so I'm painfully aware of every inch of space or lack thereof. My walls are taken up with bookshelves as it is practical but for this reason I am open to creative design considerations (book jackets or even storage boxes to simplify the visual lines of the space. My book collection is the focal point. In the large wall size bookshelf I categorize by subject - art catalogs, travel books, general fiction, more weighty literature, research, mysteries etc so color-coordination wouldn't work there.

However, I do have a narrow IKEA lack bookcase to one side of my bed where I keep "guilty pleasure" reads. After seeing a few posts regarding color coordination and liking the pop of color it provides, I arranged this one shelf by color and frankly it is fun and visually appealing.

Books are very decorative...

There's a bookstore in Montreal that displays most of its books face-forward (i.e., you see the cover, not the spine. It's wonderful -- almost like an art collection.

I have too many books to do this on every shelf, but I do like to display some of the art and design books face-out.

I LOVE how seriously you bibliophiles are taking your shelving systems!

To prepare for my Ph.D qualifying exams in American literature, I arranged the 400 books I needed to read in chronological order of publication date -- Hawthorne on the same shelf as Melville; Fitzgerald adjacent to Hemingway, etc.

I read and re-read the books in order. During the exams, whenever I needed to cite examples of books from a narrow, historic timeframe or write about a particular author's contemporaries, I would visualize my bookcases and tried to remember which books were placed where.

@richies_mom that sounds awesome!

One of the most horrific things I've ever seen done, book-wise, was in a newly built custom home. The homeowners had spent nearly a million dollars creating this dream house - they picked out marble from Naxos, spent thousands on decorative gargoyles, the lot. In their built-in bookcases, however, they put FAKE BOOKS. You know, the painted wood panels that look like old books. It wasn't even as though there was a hidden door behind them (the only acceptable reason I could think for installing them), it was purely decorative.

Gets my blood boiling to this day.

Evangeline

I do have my "prettier" books (matching sets, leather bound, colors that match) in my living room and ugly books in my office (paperbacks mostly).

@mlleErica: AMEN. I'm a former bookseller and English major with hundreds of books. I don't organize my books by color, but I don't see a valid argument against it. I can describe the cover of every book I own, and I certainly wouldn't have any trouble finding them (even, as I found, with their spines IN).

I get so riled when people LITERALLY judge a book by its cover: non-traditional organization does not denote stupidity, but could be an indicator of advanced visual intelligence!

Anyway, I posted about this a while back. Read for a laugh:

http://shockthebourgeois.blogspot.com/2009/09/decorating-by-book-or-not.html

@richies_mom: Brilliant. I can relate: I had a rotten time remembering dates and facts until I started memorizing the PAGES of the books containing the information.

my partner has this talent for making a stack of random books look beautiful together on a shelf. i do not have this talent. therefore, until he gets around to organizing my whopping collection of well-loved books, they are sorted by colour. except for the row of national geographics, i actually think it looks quite subtle and works very well for me as an organizational system.

It may be valid for you, Erica, but I'll bet money it's not valid for a majority of serious readers, that's all. And I don't think you would be very successful in persuading most of them to change their minds. It's not me laying down the law. Just the reality as I see it. I can't imagine spending time arranging 2 thousand books by color, when there is so little time in the day for reading. Most books are sort of faded reddish, anyway, and I like it that way. I wouldn't mind having covers made for some the ones whose covers I don't like so much -- as I said, but I don't think it's going to happen

We organize ours by subject (or language) and then period when there are enough of them. Except for fiction and poetry, most categories don't need to be alphabetized.

I do have a shelf devoted to children's books we or our kids decided to keep, that are now out of print, such as ladybird books and E. Nesbit. But they are not in any order except that dictated by the sizes of the shelves. (I stash ephemeral books, that I can't imagine keeping on the windowsill). We also have misc. piles to read, re-read, and give away or sell.

@LadyMantle

Yeah, books by the yard is to me one of the douche-iest things to do... EVER. It'd be like in 30 years someone buying DVDs by the meter, just 'cause they're 'vintage' (and I REALLY HOPE they change things to the metric system by then). You'd go to someone's place and ask why they have 4 copies of Paris Hilton's The Hottie and the Nottie, and other things that didn't sell otherwise. Sad. Sad. Douchey and sad.

MlleErica,
Big whoop how many books you've read & reread, where you've worked, and how many books you own. Clearly you must notice that the books in the the research stacks, libraries, and bookstores aren't arranged the books by color. If that's the way you like it, fine, but from any practical perspective, it is silly. Do you also keep your black socks with you black coats, black slacks, black sweaters? Of course not. When you arrange your books by color, admit you do so because it appeals to you eye, and not for some loftier reason.

Are all of your Narnia books (whatever) the same color? If not, do you split them up? Where'd the sense be in that? If you have a book that might have multiple printed editions and the artwork is different in subsequent printings, do you have to relocate it to another shelf? How do you decide between a red or a blue dictionary? At least your yellow pages will never move.

I should have proofread -- too many typos - sorry. So your Narnia books are conveniently all white. What if they weren't.

Books add a deeply personal element to a room, reflecting ones interests and passions. They represent beloved memories of being curled up on the couch, transported and engrossed by an authors imagination and skill with language and storytelling. Beloved characters stir up emotions like friends and family. Perusing a book collection is a peak into the owners psyke.......provided they had actually been read. Their beauty comes from what they have meant to the owner, regardless of how perfectly or imperfectly they are displayed....much like photos of loved ones. Certain elements of decor are exempt from the rules.

@modarna -- I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or tell anyone that they should arrange by color. My only point is that YOU shouldn't judge me because I do -- you cannot logically infer that someone is a less serious reader just because they organize in a way that you don't prefer.

Here's a picture of one of my bookshelves -- not all reddish, my collection goes from antique theological books from the 1860's through modern sci-fi paperbacks, so the bindings are just about every color you can find, which suits me quite well.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1682767&l=7e9e5357b2&id=500186656

@krunkinator -- of course books in libraries and bookstores are not arranged by color -- and I would never say that they should be. In fact, if I even lived with anyone else who might want to find a book, I'd most likely go back to a more traditional way of organizing.

But I don't live in a library and the only person who has to find my books is me. So I have organized them in the way that is easiest for me. It's NOT silly from a practical perspective, for someone who is visually oriented.

As for your question on sets that have more than one color in them -- I solved that by dedicating the bottom shelf of one bookcase to multi-colored boxed sets. I have 7 series that fall in that category, and I keep them together, rather than take them out of the boxes and split them up. It works fine.

I have NEVER bought a book because I thought that it would look pretty on my shelf -- whether a dictionary is blue or red or baby-poo green doesn't have any bearing on which one I'd buy.

Why are you guys so closed minded? Why can't you just accept that your way may not be the only logical/respectful/tasteful way to display a book collection?

Why do people place their books vertically all the time? All of them?

Get some horizontal going on!

milleErica-- I find it hard to believe that you can instantaneously recall the spine color of some 2,000 books, it just strains credulity. But, let's assume that you can, for the sake of argument...

There are other advantages to organizing by subject rather than hue. Say you want to... oh... look up a quotation so you can quote it verbatim, and your library contains four fat quotation books of different colors. With your color system, the four books are spread randomly throughout the house, so you can't easily refer to them simultaneously. Or, say you wanted to find a certain image in your twenty-odd books on modern art--not all in one convenient place, but randomly spread out all over. (Wait, don't tell me, let me guess: your keen visual ability allows you photographic recall of every page of every spine color....)

It's not that us guys are necessarily 'closed minded' about color organization. It's just that after weighing the advantages (looks cool!) against the disadvantages (requires awesome photographic memory/ doesn't allow for easy browsing/ looks slavishly trendy and affected), we sensibly reject it as silly kid stuff.

Ugh. I hate it when this question pops up here. It really brings out the worst in commenters. And for AT, that's saying something.

Look. This is a design blog. It attracts people who come here to talk about design- a visual medium. People who read this site may be more inclined to organize books by color because it's more graphic a statement. Maybe some do it because they remember books better that way, and maybe some do it because they like the look. Either way, who gives a shit?

I am insanely passionate about music, but I don't think of a cd as some sacred object that should be a direct physical manifestation of your heart and soul. If I go over to a friend's house and see an Animal Collective poster on the wall, I won't be offended if they've never heard the band's music. They just liked the graphics. It touched a different side of them, but it still affected them in some way, so good. No need to rain down judgment upon them and decry that I am so much more cultured and so much less the poseur.

Goodness.

ladymantle, I think the books in #3 are stacked horizontally because it is a corner bookcase and they fit better that way. In general, though, it isn't a practical way to stack books if the alternative is available.

Horizontal books are difficult to remove from the shelf. Naturally, the book one wants to read is on the bottom or in the middle hence, one must remove the entire, heavy stack.

It just isn't practical, and I know this because I have a few books that are so oversized they must be stored horizontally, and it's a huge pain in the a$$.

"Look. This is a design blog. It attracts people who come here to talk about design- a visual medium."

You might consider the definition of 'design' before spouting off.

---------------

"Design is the planning that lays the basis for the making of every object or system."

or

"Design is the human power to conceive, plan, and realize products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose."

-----------------

Note that those of us disdainful of color organization object to it because it's a bad plan. A short-sighted, irrational plan. Attention to form with zero attention to function. It's anti-design.

So attention to function over form is any better? I would argue that's the work of an engineer or, in this case, a librarian or "professional organizer". Designers bring more to the table by incorporating aesthetics into the process. If I think a bookcase of "well-organized" books creates visual chaos that makes one ill at ease in his or her space, is that not also anti-design? What's good design for you may not work to accomplish my "individual purpose".

However, Ms. Doom, you did indeed prove my larger point. That point being the tone of those who argue against color-coding tends to be quite condescending and aggressive. And unnecessarily so.

Well, I see up to about 400 books (tops) on Erica's shelves. Naturally, with such a small number, one can make an idle game of arranging them, since how they are arranged hardly matters.

I live in a household with more than one person and we need to know where to find things.

Yes, Kellylc-- function always takes precedence over form. We can all thank our lucky stars that the vast majority of designers adhere to this golden rule.

As for the tone of this conversation-- it's condescending because it's in response to absurdity ("I know the spine colors of my 2,000 books by heart! My method is logically correct too!").

Look, I don't truly care if others organize by color or not, why would I? But, when they grandstand in defense the idea in public (-here-) they invite scorn and ridicule, as Monarda said. We're not attacking a person, we're attacking an idea.

And, yes, Monarda-- I count about 200 books on that double bookshelf-- the fewer books, the less the necessity to rationally organize.

Yes -- there are around 400 books on that shelf monarda -- that is one of 4 such shelves.

Shirley-- if I tell you that I know my books and never have trouble finding them why would you doubt me?

I feel like someone is about to start shouting "liar liar pants on fire" at me.

Not to continue this ridiculous argument, but I really didn't perceive any "grandstanding" by those who were pro color-organization on this thread. It was an opinion that you and a few other strongly disagreed with, which apparently gives you free reign to mock, ridicule, and be insufferably condescending. This is completely within your rights to do, it's just a shame that people use the anonymity of the internet as a excuse to disregard basic civility. Saying "um, yeah, your idea is stupid" is pretty much the same thing as saying "you're stupid". The "idea" is invariably intertwined with the person. And you probably know it. So why resort to bullying when there's absolutely no need for it?

"if I tell you that I know my books and never have trouble finding them why would you doubt me?"

What I doubt is that I could read you a list of your 2,000 book titles, and you could respond with 2,000 answers ("red"... "brown"... "blue"... "beige"...)-- the prerequisite skill needed for anything approaching efficient navigation of a 2,000 volume library arranged by color alone, and a skill that you claim to possess.

(Whether or not you can find your books to your own satisfaction is a question only you can answer-- I don't know what demands you make of your collection other than its presence as a decorative color wheel.)

Kellylc-- I'd take this same position whether writing on the internet, or conversing in 'real' life. Except, in real life I'd also gesticulate wildly with my hands since I wouldn't need them for typing.

I'm the owner of bookshelf number 3, which some people have objected to. The books are horizontal because it's a corner bookshelf, and books won't fit there any other way.

@ladymantle, sorry the Nijinsky book offends you, but my husband and I have spent our entire careers in theater and film, so about half of our books are on those topics. Do you suggest I hide them in a box to avoid alienating Sarah Palin voters?

Illegitimi non carborundum, Lisa (Montreal). This is exactly why I would never, ever open my home here to these bullies.

BTW- your place has such amazing architecture! I hadn't seen your house tour before today and I'm so glad I did. Your textiles are gorgeous.

I agree. Lisa, I just saw your Tour and your place is exquisite. Such lovely Old World architecture, art and soft lighting. And I like your sense of humor!

If it gives people pleasure to play with their possessions in this way, why not? They are the ones who live in their own dwellings.

But at the same time you can't have it both ways.

If you are going to arrange your books by color alone, booklovers are going to say it conveys valuing 'form over substance", solipsism, or both.

You know the old saying: If one person calls you a horse, ignore it, but if ten people call you a horse, you shouldn't expect sympathy but should go out and buy yourself a saddle (or a thicker skin). It's unreasonable to complain when when you get a predictable reaction.

I like the idea of the person who built a separate house just for his books, myself. For me, as someone who lives with a biblio-maniac, a house with no books (or just a few) would be the ultimate luxury.

Exactly, Monarda-- people who embrace unconventional ideas (even if 'harmless' ideas, like novel new ways to organize books) should be prepared to defend the ideas, without resorting to the complaint that others are being big old meanies. (Or, keep your unconventional ideas to yourself.)

"Real rebellion doesn't feel like going to school dressed in black. It feels like going to school wearing a clown suit."

(So, choose a rebellious stance with care.)

Fair enough. But by the same token, if you insist on expressing your opinion in a snarky, overly-aggressive way, don't be surprised when people don't rain virtual roses down upon you. I re-read your comments and between the sarcastic jabs you make some very well-reasoned and well-articulated points. Too bad no one on the other side of the argument will listen as you automatically put them on the defensive by implicitly calling them morons and/or liars. And then standing back like, "Hey, hey! Don't get mad at me! If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, folks!"

Well, okay, so same to you. You want to add to the increasingly hostile atmosphere that's ruining the AT experience for many of us around here, go right ahead. But it's unreasonable to expect that others bite their tongues about it.

My books aren't arranged in any of the ways described above. They are in two rooms--my living room and my bedroom. In the year I've been in my house I haven't had time to "arrange" them by any system other than hardcover in the living room, paperback in my room. But the truth is, other than reference books and a few anthologies of poetry, I don't often touch, let alone reread, any of them--and I certainly don't need to find them in a hurry. So how they're arranged just isn't that important. Because of lack of storage space, I've tried hard not to buy books I really don't need to own. And I have a great public library just up the street.

Book sprezzatura:

Linda was perfectly enchanted with her outing, Christian's father, she said, lived in the smallest house imaginable . . . although absolutely tiny, it had nothing whatever of the cottage about it -- it was in the grand manner, and full of books. Every available wall space was covered with books, they lay stacked on tables and chairs and in heaps on the floor. . .[But] . there was nothing picturesque about [Mr. Talbot], or anything to indicate that he was a learned man, he was brisque and matter of fact and made some funny jokes . . . "He's perfect heaven," Linda kept saying ....
--Nancy Mitford, The Pursuit of Love(1945)

Bookshelf number 3 looks like a HUGE fire hazard... "highly stacked combustible material."

I'm calling the fire marshal.

I place my books on my bookshelves by category,
- cooking
- decorating
- finance
- gardening
- organizing
- etc.

the one thing that really bothers me, is when they put pictures/paintings up on the bookcase in front of the books,
to me, looks like the paintings should be on a wall, not cluttered in front of alot of books, (to each her own i guess) my rant for the month.

washington state.