apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Having just downsized to half of the books I used to have, my first question concerning these books, Is "do you really love/value these particular books?" I realized that I had many "junk" books. I picked them up from a beach house, found them on the street... I read them once, but will never read them again.

so, this past summer I downsized my book collection taking them to several used book stores for which I was given store credit.

Honestly, from the photo you do not really have "pretty" books, I personally think tattered paperbacks are not as "pretty" on a shelf as a big stack of thick hard-covers with really colorful dust jackets on the spines...

I tend to have the last 10 books I have just read in a pile somewhere in the apt. Cookbooks are in a cabinet with doors in the den, the rest I have on a shelved closet.

But I do lust over those rooms with floor to ceiling shelved, even if they are full of yellow national geographics... Cant go wrong with floor to ceiling...

just remembered the critique a friend of mine got for having books on a shelf in the living room, somebody actually told them they were being pretentious for having books out, and displaying too much highbrow stuff...

I bought some great shallow depth bookshelves from a going out of business bookstore, which are so nice and streamlined- not like the newer stuff that is too deep - designed more to display stuff rather than books.

My MIL who is an original modern funriture collector (the dumpster diving sort starting in the early 80s), also turned me on to the idea of arranging books by color - even paperbacks can be beautiful art objects on their own - with a surprising range of tones. It's a fun rainy day project and if you, like me are "attached" to your books its a nice way to visit them, and remember great reads of the past!

The LA Times had a great article on book-lovers and their obsession with books. I comment on this ATLA post because once you've read the LA Times article, you will probably take a more serious look at your collections. I posted an article about it on my blog-- http://organizingla.blogs.com/organizingla_blog/2005/09/burried_in_book.html

I also posted another article recently on Mareike Gast's "Broken Bookshelves." Here is that one:
http://organizingla.blogs.com/organizingla_blog/2005/10/_there_is_nothi.html

-- John

hmm, I have the same question. Assuming that I have the books I'm going to have, and I have the bookshelves I'm going to have (both of which are true), and could arrange them anywhich way, how would your recommend? MAx once said something about the biggest/heaviest books at the boottom, which sounds great in quake country. Any thoughts?
alternating flat and vertical? only one orientation per shelf, or can I mix? Should I try to make the books look sparse by spreading them out with knick-knacks between books, or dense by making knickknack shelves and book-ful book shelves. Thoughts appreciated!

Max?

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Most of the time, I feel it's just that you've got too many books. Someone needs to correct me here, but I start on the left with the biggest and tallest books going down on size to the smallest (shortest size.) Then on the next shelf (where you have the short books) you start in that side with the larger, taller books moving that shelf to the smaller ones.

It would look something like this:

Tall books ------ > short books
Short books ----- > tall books
Tall books ------ > short books
Short books ----- > tall books

Believe it or not, I've seen books organized by color (with dust jackets taken off) and also by size. This is beautiful.

You'll want to make sure you eye travels zig-zap up and down using the above method. Work in objects that fit into that scheme. I've used this idea for pottery collections of tea pots, coffee pots, creamers, demi-tasse and it works nicely. Instead of a jumble of stuff, your eye travels from shelf-to-shelf-to-shelf without tiring using that zig-zag. Also you can stack books laying them down flat too-- as long as you follow this method (and if you stack flat, you'll probably only want to do this on the "short" side of the shelf, otherwise you'll have a hard time pulling books then you need them.

Again, tell me if I am insane.

-- John

there was a book store in sf (the name escapes me) that rearranged the entire stock by color.

IMHO nothing beats the Dewey Decimal System. Still, I am forced to put heavy art books on the bottom shelves.

As to the pretentiousness of having books in the living room--what's that about? If one is a reader, what is wrong with that? (BTW: My husband has told me he knew I was the woman he'd marry when he walked into my living room and saw my books.)

To those who like to arrange books as decor, well, more power to you. Methinks, though, that having books arranged in a logical manner (as in the Dewey Decimal System) allows one to find particular books quickly and to compare and contrast books on similar subjects.

Even tattered old paperbacks can be a beloved sight. I have books that inspired me when I was a teen--granted they are in the bedroom and not the living room.

I tend to group books by topic--nothing so precise as Dewey decimal, though. Just loose topics: poetry, books about baseball, historical mysteries, etc. If the topic is non-fiction I'll group by size within a category. Poetry and fiction get grouped alpha by author.

Books look better if they are lined up nearly flush with the front edge of the shelf (and they get less dusty this way) and better too if you don't place knickknacks in front of them. (It's okay to top a short stack of books on their sides with a finial or something, though.)

There's a handsome book called "Living with Books" that's a nice read and has gorgeous pictures and some ideas about capturing space for book storage.

Afterthought:

Books look better if their heights are proportionate to the vertical distance between the shelves. In Alex's pic above, part of the problem with the display is that the shelves are spaced too far apart for a pleasing composition. A solution might be to introduce some sort of riser so that more of the vertical space can be captured.

As a former librarian and dedicated bibliophile, I must say it pains me to hear talk of books arranged by height or color. It also makes me sad when people talk about getting rid of old books because they're not "pretty". I love all of my books and have returned to many of them repeatedly, dog-eared or not. Now, I'm a super library nerd, so I have mine organized based loosely on the Library of Congress classification system (if you have lots of fiction, like I do, it can be more efficient than the Dewey, which just alphabetizes fiction based on author last name). But any system works, as long as it's based on some kind of logic...whatever works for you that allows you (or anyone) to retrieve a book easily without scanning every shelf looking for it. I know maybe it sounds snobby, but when I see people's books arranged by height or color, it makes me wonder why they even bother keeping them after they read them. It reduces books to amusing tchotkes. (wow, if only I could as worked up about housework, I'd be so much better off.)

i have my books arranged by subject with the most often referenced books at eye height and the least often used books up high or down low. the big heavy books also tend to migrate down. within a subject area i try to group books from the same series together. other than that, books are just plain beautiful no matter how they're arranged.

i try to leave space on my shelves for new books and for the odd non book object. it does lighten the appearance of an entire wall of books. if you have old books, stacking them on their sides will help to preserve their bindings.

it is said that alistair cooke had his book shelves arranged by subject. since his "subject" was american history/culture, he arranged his books geographically...like a map on the wall. all books about new england were in the upper right hand corner; books about the south in the lower right corner and so on.

My books are arranged by size, and hardcovers separated from paperbacks. I work in book production, so I tend to think about the sizes and shapes of books. Bigger, heavier books on the bottom, for obvious reasons.

I have to say that I saw the photo and thought that it wasn't even enough books to worry much about. I have 8-10 times that many books in my living room.

I also have a lot of books, and have been in the process of getting rid of some of them. I have worked in several bookstores, all of which gave me crazy discounts on closeout or used books. It was very easy to walk home with 20 books for $10. I hate when I talk about this with people in decor/organizing communities, and their solution is "get rid of all your books, then they won't be a problem!" Well, duh, and I do acquire much less than I used to, and have gotten rid of a lot. But there are still plenty I need to keep, like the rare scholarly things that only got published once, 50 years ago, a whole ocean away.

I also had a long-distance move a few years back, and made a point of researching how to pack books, and how to shelve them in a way that is best for them.

The best way to shelve books is the standard way that libraries do it: standing up, spine facing. Laid flat is also OK, but not as good. Never ever shelve books spine-up or spine-down; the weight of the pages can mess up the binding. Make sure to dust the books every so often, keep them free of humidity, do what you can to discourage silverfish, etc.

If you have to pack them, pack them flat in stacks that are graduated from having the largest books on the bottom and the smallest books at the top. Tissue-wrap each book if possible (stacks of 3 worked for me); fill the box about 2/3 full and fill the rest with lightweight packing materials. Boxes should be around 12x12x18". This is the "best way" to move books (according to a bunch of archivist websites I visited at the time). Anything the movers packed wound up damaged and warped; anything I packed came through in pristine shape.

That said, I organize my collection topically - IE, I have a shelf for all my Japanese books (partly Genji, partly pop-culture, partly translated modern fiction). I have a shelf for art history and technique, another shelf for writing books, another shelf for craft books, blah blah blah.

If you are overly concerned about visual unity on your bookshelves, there are two or three good solutions: 1) doors on the bookshelves. 2) curtains in front of the bookshelves. 3) wrap all the books in a good-quality (acid-free) paper of a single color and hand-label the spines, or choose a paper translucent enough that the title is visible through the paper.

Some books on this topic to check out: "The Book on the Bookshelf" by Henry Petroski, "Living With Books" by Alan Powers, "At Home With Books" by Estelle Ellis. Whichever of the latter two includes all the profiles of the expensive antiquarian libraries in stately homes (Ellis?) is generally less useful than the other two in terms of shelving books, though I believe it does include at least one person who wraps all his books in white paper.

PS I really hate, hate, hate those "Broken Bookshelves" and a number of other design-oriented bookshelves I've seen lately. The concept is cool, but the shelving styles - the angles, the pressure that will be put on certain books that are given the job of keeping all the other books from sliding - are terrible for the books. The shelves are all form and no function.

Miranda, you are excellent.

:) thanks.

mostly i'm just obsessive! i learned how to read so young that i have no conscious memory of it.

and yes, the "best way" to pack books is expensive and time-consuming. at one point i got the bright idea to shred magazines i didn't want anymore and use the shredding as packing material, but it's really heavy as packing material goes! i think i wound up mixing it with styrofoam peanuts. i wish i had been able to do all my book boxes. i had especially terrible movers. everything is broken.

for the record, I have never gotten rid of a book for not being "pretty", but I do get rid of books that I will never want to read again, (old textbooks, books that become out-of-date such as technical oriented books, books that pretty much stunk to begin with...)

Quite the opposite is true of a short stack of 18th century leather bound books of dubious titles that are just too "pretty" to part with that are the bane of my "get rid of, if I will never read again Philosophy"...