Disagree completely. My copy of "Programming Perl" 4th edition is still in pristine condition after two readings and I prefer it that way. My favourite tech books all have plastic jackets which I ordered individually for each book.
I actually disagree except in the case of programming/software books. Unless the book is for an unusual example or early version of a language or piece of software, it's going into the landfill in 5 years no matter what.
Aside from a few things of particular historical or personal interest (e.g. an old O'Reilly The Whole Internet with a passing mention of that new-fangled WWW thing), I've tossed bookshelves full of old manuals and programming books. Not even worth donating them because they're just going to create for someone to toss them.
You're obviously reading the wrong books. Try Programming Perl, Clojure in Action or Well Grounded Rubyist. If you have a soul you will not want to part with them.
I've always felt that the contents of books are precious. I always go for the cheapest copy I can find so I can get my hands on as many books as possible. And the more worn a book is, more of it's content has made its way into my brain =)
If you really like a book, you can get a nice archival copy on printed on acid-free paper and only read it while wearing special gloves, and also a working copy that you outline in and scribble in the margins and spill coffee on.
Yeah. Not to criticize anyone else's take but, unless something is some variant of a "coffee table book" meant to be appreciated in part for its form, anything is fair game. Most cookbooks I regularly use have scribbling in the margins as well as reference books of other sorts. I have zero issue with taking notes in a paperback. Perhaps obviously, I like/prefer ebooks for a lot of purposes too.
The form of some books is a lot of the experience and in general I won't mess that up by writing in them. But most are about the words and I don't consider the form sacrosanct in any way.
The fact that you treat your books with respect by using them properly doesn't mean you're not going to read and maybe even love some of them.
Knowing how to open a new book, how to turn pages properly, keeping your hands clean when you handle them, knowing how to wrap a book in a protective cover when you take it with you, and keeping the notes in your notebooks where they belong is essential. Little things like that is what human culture is made of.
I like the sentiment, but I think there is a healthy middle ground and really the right answer is for the owner of the book to treat it however they feel brings them the most job.
> really the right answer is for the owner of the book to treat it however they feel brings them the most job
That's not what the article said and thus not what I was arguing with. While I tend to agree with your statement, I just can't bring myself to seeing books as mere things.
When I was a kid my mother used to help me wrap all my textbooks, although we didn't do that with other books. It seemed typical at the time (in America btw) but it might be a dying practice as textbooks go digital and schools give kids ipads instead.
I don't know how old everyone is, but in the 80s (in the US) we would make covers for our textbooks with brown paper grocery bags. It wasn't affectionate; at the end of the year they charged you for damage (it was before modern hyperdisposable capitalism, and the same books would be used for years and multiple students.)
Yep, brown paper bags is usually what we used. Sometimes we'd use gift wrapping paper though if there was any laying around. That was a bit less durable, but it looked nicer so I guess I was probably gentler with those books.
When I was in public school (1960s-1970s) we were required to wrap our textbooks, since they were reused for years. I got really good at making wrappers from butcher paper or used shopping bags. In college it was normal to purchase cheap decorated covers, but only for hardback textbooks; if your paperback Norton Anthology of English Literature survived the semester, good luck to whoever bought it next.
Do you want an answer on a global scale, or compared to the US?
My position has no direct connection to the price of the books, it has with their value, though. FYI, when I was growing up books were pretty cheap, compared to the median income.
In elementary school we used to make paper covers for our textbooks. I don't remember when, but I suppose that it was at school. The textbooks were going back to the school at the end of the year for the next year's classes.
This was part of our routine in Junior High and High School in Pennsylvania 1979-85. We would make book covers for our hardcover textbooks out of paper grocery bags.
I've done much the same, though the books that have been most important to me over the years I have hardbound copies of. But I don't have enough room in my apartment for all the books I own, and have read. Kindle and related devices have effectively infinite capacity.
I couldn’t agree more. I listen to multiple audiobooks sort of intermittently plus multiple podcasts and it’s great to have such a mess. It’s about processing the information. What’s the point of reading a book if you don’t plan to remember it! Even fiction should be memorable I hope
Sure, I am currently earning enough money to be able to afford messing up my books if I wanted to but it feels so wasteful. Feels so weird to purposely vandalize your own stuff. I prefer making notes in a separate medium and keeping my books clean.
I like being able to gift or sell my books to other people. Plus, I might want to re-read them and I really dislike having any annotations in them. I feel like it would stop me from having a "fresh read".
I feel the opposite. Writing in a book is the final step in really making it mine. Not writing in it seems to be an insult to the author, that what they wrote isn't important enough to engage with (though some are that bad).
It seems you are mistaking the actual book (a story, an exposition of a subject, etc.) for the printed set of cover and pages, which is only a physical instance of the book itself. Writing your notes in a separate medium is just as much engaging with the book as writing in the margins of a physical copy. It's a matter of taste really, but definitely not an insult to the author!
How did you grow up that you could develop that habit though?
Thinking about my childhood, the vast majority of the books I read were from libraries. School books were also all lend from school. Sure, I also owned plenty of books myself but my parents would have been pretty pissed if I vandalized them as my siblings might want to read them.
For me books where always something to share not something to own. Never got the need to make them "my own".
I take pride in not making them my own, and that other people will have them after I'm dead, and the books will be theirs. I've been taking care of some books for 40 years now. Plenty of those I got because someone else took care of them for 40 years before me. If anything, I feel guilty when I accidentally buy bad books that no one in the future would want to read.
Honestly, when people who take care of their things die, it's like an explosion of wealth. The things in my place range from the mid-19th century to today. If you let people pick through my shit and take something that looks cool, my death could result in 1000 smiles.
edit: I even take care of the things that I've made. They're no doubt mine, but some of those things will make someone else just as happy as they've made me.
If you scribble one of my books, I'll kill you. I don't understand people who do this.
Other than that, I agree that books want to be handled. I read a lot of books and I also re-read a lot, and my books look worn. I also accept bending pages to remember where you left the story; I never have bookmarks handy.
Writing in the margins is a thing I believe many a scribe has done for many generations
It's recognized as a study aid. Especially if you're re-reading or studying a lot of material on a subject and need to go back. You can easily see what your past self was thinking or maybe quickly find a part you found interesting.
It's fundamentally useful to write up your own books.
It is just one tool among many for the acquisition and retention of knowledge.
I like used books with notes in it. It's interesting to see what someone previously reading felt was important or to glimpse into the past life of book itself.
This made me remember a time I checked a book out from the library and found lots of little notes written in Chinese characters in the margins throughout the book. Most if not all were, I assume, translations of words. It was quite nice - they had wonderful penmanship.
I would ask how it ruins it for the next reader. I suppose it depends on the definition of "scribble", but notes in the margins and underlined words are helpful for me when I'm scribbling as it helps me regain the context. Practically, when I borrow/lend a book, I find it interesting on their thoughts, as opposed to bothersome.
Yes, I understand. I disagree with scribbling in your own books because (I found) scribblers often forget and do it in the books I lend them. Also, I inherited books from my aunt, who was a heavy scribbler, and it annoys me. It has a factor of having a connection to her, which I appreciate... but I also find her scribblings distracting.
Plus "your own books" are never truly just your own. In the example from the author of TFA, they are his family's. I wouldn't have wanted my brother's or parent's scribblings in books from our family bookshelves!
I usually get a free bookmark with every book I buy, but soon misplace them. Bending pages is the one sin I allow myself without much guilt. The damage is very light anyway.
I bend pages not just to keep my current spot, but as persistent markers to things I want to find later, notes I've scribbled, or whatever. A big ephemeral dog ear for current location, and then a bunch of tiny little persistent dog ears for reference.
> I also accept bending pages to remember where you left the story; I never have bookmarks handy.
I decided about 20 years ago I wasn't going to use bookmarks anymore. If I can't find where I was, I need to reread from whatever I recognize. If I can't figure out a place to drop in and understand what's going on, I should just start over from the beginning (it'll probably be faster the second time anyway.) I also really hate dogears; they crack off in about 10 years or so.
My personal take is books read better when they're "read". That is, when they've been used time and again. I tried switching to Kindle, but I found that I read less.
The only books I do treat pristinely are those from the library – then, I write on a different page, as well as special copies e.g. I have an annotated and illustrated The Hobbit, as well as an old paperback. The latter would be written in.
But for books I own, I almost always annotate, highlight, mark up, write in, etc. however I want. I forgot who said it – probably Mortimer J. Adler – but writing in a book and engaging with it is the highest compliment you can pay to an author. T
I think it really depends on the book, type of printing and its purpose. You might have a first edition you never open and read the kindle instead, have a cheap paperback for the beach that has sand and water wrinkles, or you might have a well used out of print tech book that you are gentle with in the hopes it will last longer than you do. If someone wants a display quality hardback to line their living room bookshelf to impress guests or accent their video meeting background, so what?
Life is too short to read everything. Read what keeps your interest, page by page. If a book bores you, don't finish it. Sell it, give it to a friend, drop it off at goodwill, let it gather dust. So what? Just my two cents.
When I was a teen, I heard an author say they loved signing clearly well worn copies of their books. Not only did it mean it was not likely going to be resold, but it also meant it was well loved. I've always treated my books roughly since then.
I always carry a paperback in my back pocket, and it's often margin written and beer stained. My favorite books get the worst treatment.
People who write in books: what do you write? I remember being forced to write on sticky notes in high school, and trying several times afterwards, and I just don’t get it. I see the phrase “engaging with the writing” thrown around by proponents. What does “engaging” mean here?
In regards to letting books get scuffed up, I must say I disagree as well. I like to keep all of my things shiny and new, and my books are no exception.
I have a few different ways of marking up a text. In one approach, I make a small vertical line in the margin next to a line I find significant. Sometimes that vertical line extends down a few lines to mark a longer passage. If it's really important, I add a second line, and sometimes I'll even add a third line.
For many books, this is just a way of mentally noting something and letting it go enough to move on. But if I end up wanting to write a review of a book (usually a blog post, not a bookstore review), I just skim through these marked up sections. That's usually enough to guide my write up. The triple-marked sections usually end up quoted in the review.
I also write a capital R in the margin next to things I'd like to research further. Sometimes I put a question mark next to a section I'm skeptical of.
I don't usually write in fiction, but with nonfiction and especially technical writing (like O'Reilly books) I find taking notes helpful, and the book itself is the most convenient place up do so. I'll underline important words or phrases, ask questions, raise concerns, recall definitions from earlier.
I find doing this helps keep me honest about whether I'm understanding what I'm reading or just glossing through it, and it helps pace my engagement. If I can't come up with one question or comment per page, I've probably lost focus.
Engaging means thinking about the author’s words as in you’re in a debate/discussion. You may agree, but notice something you need to research more about. You may disagree and not down why you do. You may want to summarize the point he is making. You may want to link it to another work. For myself, I don’t really do it if I’m new to the subject, maybe a few lines about each chapter. But once I’ve read a few different books, I’m starting to form my own opinion or try to link concepts across books. This is what my notes are about.
Why would you write those notes in the book? To find the note, you'd have to find the thing you were writing the note about (i.e. the passage on the page), so then what do you need the note for?
The idea is when you return to that idea, you already have some context of where it lead you last time you read. Returning to that later allows you to keep building.
You may be interested in the short article by Mortimer Adler, 'How to Mark a Book'[1] (he also expands greatly on this in his book titled 'How to Read a Book').
The usual: underlining, highlighting, and bracketing paragraphs of note.
I dog-ear pages that include a lesson that I really wish to internalize and take away from the book. Something I expect to revisit often.
On top of that, I’m writing in the margins. Questions I have about what the author has written, counter-arguments when I disagree, check-boxes with descriptions of actionable tasks I can do, tangential thoughts that were inspired in the course of reading (often unrelated), ideas that I think might combine well with an insight by the author, and generally anything that I think about in the process of writing.
I've never been one to do more than underline in a paper book. I have nothing against writing in margins, etc., but I find there simply isn't enough room to write what I want to write. This is a benefit of Kindle (and perhaps other) ebooks -- you can write a note of whatever length, and download it later.
In fact, everything should be treated this way. Yes, you shouldn't abuse stuff (which is a very fine line -- sometimes being very harsh on a tool can save your ass, is that abuse or just the tool rising to the occasion?), but it's always meant to be used. Objects fall into two categories:
1. Things meant to be preserved so future generations can have them, just as you have them now.
2. Things meant to be used.
(A third category, things meant to appreciate in value, is so close to #1 that it's not worth separating out.)
Use your stuff. That's what it's for. Who do you respect more, the mechanic with a toolbox full of pristine tools without a single scratch, or the one with a box full of battered, dinged-up tools? This article's library full of factory-new books, or one full of creased, dog-eared, broken-spined books? Which child's toy had the better life, the one that's indistinguishable from new or the one that's indistinguishable from a pile of scraps and fluff?
Category 3: Anything that isn't disposable or a tool. Most stuff can be of value to others once you are done using it. I treat all my stuff with care, because some day I might want to sell it, or give it away to someone. Whether it's a book, electronics, kitchenware, or furniture doesn't really matter; The value of the item (in money or in usefulness to the recipient) will always be higher the better condition something is in. You also are less likely to have to buy replacement items if you are careful with them in the first place. I agree in that you shouldn't treat everything like porcelain, but there is definitely value in treating your things with care.
I think you meant for 2, "Things meant to be used up." You use the things in category 1, too.
For me, category one includes all of my books. Category two consists almost entirely of food, cleaning and hygiene products, and most bedding and underwear.
I got most of my books after they had been purchased and probably read, I don't know why I should assume I was the end of the line. [edit: I mean, I have books and things that I know have had multiple owners; I've got books from Bell Labs' library that were lent out a few dozen times and touched by many more hands. Why should I scribble in them and treat them like shit again? Instead of treating them like shit, I'd rather just destroy them in a careful scanning process.]
> Who do you respect more, the mechanic with a toolbox full of pristine tools without a single scratch, or the one with a box full of battered, dinged-up tools?
If by "respect" you mean would rather hire, I'd rather hire the third guy with the well-used, very well-taken care of tools. Why would I hire a slob that isn't maintaining their equipment?
No, I'm not talking about consumables at all. I really am speaking about durable goods!
I am not arguing for treating items "like shit". That's abuse, and while abuse of inanimate objects is hardly a mortal sin, I still don't like it, and I said as much in my original post.
What I am saying is, use your stuff, and don't sweat the normal wear and tear that comes with use. There is absolutely no such thing as a factory pristine set of tools that also gets used regularly. They get scratched and dinged and beaten up, and you can see it. They will also get cleaned and oiled and maintained generally, and you can see that too.
Some of the other replies here talk about treating stuff more gently than it needs, because... well, I don't really know why. This is something I've struggled with too, and as I've gotten older (not to mention worked in product development -- you see some things there!) this has gotten easier for me, and so my life has gotten easier. A few years ago I got a new stove, way too expensive, and way too bright and clean and shiny. Then I put a big ugly scratch right into the front of it, before ever cooking anything on it. My first reaction was horror -- I damaged it -- and then I relaxed: Now I don't have to worry about scratching it anymore, I can just _use_ it without worrying about that. And so I did, and I do! There's real freedom that comes from thinking this way.
By all means, take care of fragile things. But objects have a purpose to serve, best exemplified by tools. If a tool cannot serve its purpose because it's broken or inadequate, you replace it. And if that same tool cannot serve its purpose because you are too gentle and refuse to let it, you have to replace your attitude.
I think we're both in camp (1). I'm not arguing for abuse (camp 2), I'm arguing against people who buy things to look at. "But we can't use the good china, it's too good to use" is laughable when you say it like that, but there are a lot of people who think that way about many objects in their lives.
This is a message a lot of people would benefit from hearing. I think it’s oversimplified as a binary, but many people should move in that direction.
There is power in treating things as consumable. It’s easy to only think of the cost, but this is very limiting.
I am extremely gentle by nature. In high school, a teacher didn’t believe I’d read a book because it looked so new. The binding was still tight.
This gentleness is not always warranted. What breaks me out of it is thinking in terms of trades. Trading textbooks for an education is a great trade. If it will help you to rip out the pages and put them on your wall, go for it.
> 1. Things meant to be preserved so future generations can have them, just as you have them now.
I recommend everyone visit an estate sale at least once. You're not going to buy anything, but rather to see all the things someone valued, but that have almost no value to everyone else.
That 90+ piece set of beautiful cutlery in silver? The highest bid will be below its melt value, because that's exactly what they'll do with it.
The well-crafted piece of furniture that was made by an artisan from carefully selected wood? No one is bidding on it at all because it doesn't fit modern aesthetics or considerations.
The carefully curated personal libraries, with no particularly collectible editions or rare books? Being sold for weight.
It really helps put this in perspective as to just exactly what is worth preserving and what isn't. What is important to you, but essentially junk to everyone else.
One of the key contention points is whether one respects the book/author by keeping the book pristine vs marking it (or whether the book as a physical object deserves respect). This is purely subjective, and has a historical precedent. Books used to be freaking expensive, so of course you would want to preserve it. Now, most books can be printed cheaply, but some people still like to keep their possessions clean. There are many other examples of this divide, like how people use their tools, pots, kitchens, cars, laptops, etc.
The other is whether actively engaging with the book helps with understanding and recall. I don't think there is much disagreement on this point, but this does not require marking the physical book. You can use post-it notes and such, but in the digital age, arguably marking a physical book is inferior to annotating a digital copy and cross-hyperlinking it with other books and your personal knowledge base. Unfortunately both the technology and copyright law is lacking in this area as far as I'm aware, but rather than debating whether to write in physical books, I think everyone would benefit from innovating on the digital side of things.
The concept of breaking a book into "chunks" and then individually scheduling those chunks to be read via an spaced repetition algorithm. The thing is that incremental reading is much harder to do with physical books. And you would have to either calculate the next schedule(hard) or use a simple leinter box system(loss of efficiency).
I wonder if normal reading is this "pristine" reading and incremental reading being the "messy" reading.
When Norman Mailer died, some item in the paper said that he was known for taking books apart into pieces that were easier to manage. Whether these were his own novels, or those of other writers, I don't remember.
But no, I had not heard of incremental reading in this sense. So after reading the section on regular languages in the Cinderella book one would reread it before moving on to context-free languages?
Some books are not good enough to be messy with. But those that are good enough are either scribbled in everywhere or left in pristine condition while taking notes elsewhere to not disgrace the masterpiece.
In fact, every time I see someone grab a book in perfect condition off a shelf and then proceed to crack the spine as if it's some sort of required ritual before even considering whether to read the book, I feel like I die a bit inside.
I try to keep my books pristine and even try to fix damaged elements of them because they’re so precious, not because they’re jewels. I don’t open the spines to their cracking point, or bend a page, or write in them, or get their covers all fingerprinty because I value the book and want it to last a long time. To treat it poorly by doing all the things the author claims are nearly essential is to degrade the life of the book and rid me of its pleasures sooner than I’d like.
My family has a home library and we treat it like a regular library. My kids pull anything off the shelves they want, and read it, and then it goes in a box to be re-shelved (since otherwise some of the younger kids will put them back in semi-random places). They also have access to a huge CD library and a CD player/amplifier. The only rule there is they have one CD out of the case at a time (because they tend to drop cases of they are piled up). This is strictly a practical matter to limit the amount of repair work I have to do. I know the cases are replaceable; I've replaced many dozens of them and I"m sick of it!
There are also some "special collection" things: mineral collections, electronic kits, etc. The only rules with those is they have to be put away. They've got a low table, a high table, and couple of comfy chairs, and reading lamps.
We ask them not to read them while eating or drinking (other than water bottles) and to keep the library items downstairs. It's because we have toddlers who don't have access to the library and they like to tear up books. We also ask them not to fold over pages (in paperbacks this results in the pages eventually breaking off, sometimes shockingly soon due to acid paper becoming brittle). I ask them not to write in the books. We have a huge supply of yellow pads and other notebooks of various sizes and they are welcome to use them, and an endless supply of pencils and pens.
I make a distinction between honest wear and carelessness. I love it when I see the books showing wear from reading. A lot of the books are somewhat rare and were hard to obtain. They can read those just like the others. I do have a special collection of signed books upstairs in my bedroom but most of those books have "reading copy" mates in the library. I don't love it when I see that someone's left it upside down on a dirty floor and the spine is split or a cover has been torn off. That's not honest wear - someone let a toddler at one of the library books without supervision.
79 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 52.1 ms ] threadThe form of some books is a lot of the experience and in general I won't mess that up by writing in them. But most are about the words and I don't consider the form sacrosanct in any way.
Knowing how to open a new book, how to turn pages properly, keeping your hands clean when you handle them, knowing how to wrap a book in a protective cover when you take it with you, and keeping the notes in your notebooks where they belong is essential. Little things like that is what human culture is made of.
I like the sentiment, but I think there is a healthy middle ground and really the right answer is for the owner of the book to treat it however they feel brings them the most job.
That's not what the article said and thus not what I was arguing with. While I tend to agree with your statement, I just can't bring myself to seeing books as mere things.
Did you grow up in a poor country? My mom used to do that when I was a kid. After we moved to N America I only saw it done once.
Its actually quite lovely.
My position has no direct connection to the price of the books, it has with their value, though. FYI, when I was growing up books were pretty cheap, compared to the median income.
(Someone was going to say it.)
Sure, I am currently earning enough money to be able to afford messing up my books if I wanted to but it feels so wasteful. Feels so weird to purposely vandalize your own stuff. I prefer making notes in a separate medium and keeping my books clean.
I like being able to gift or sell my books to other people. Plus, I might want to re-read them and I really dislike having any annotations in them. I feel like it would stop me from having a "fresh read".
Thinking about my childhood, the vast majority of the books I read were from libraries. School books were also all lend from school. Sure, I also owned plenty of books myself but my parents would have been pretty pissed if I vandalized them as my siblings might want to read them.
For me books where always something to share not something to own. Never got the need to make them "my own".
Honestly, when people who take care of their things die, it's like an explosion of wealth. The things in my place range from the mid-19th century to today. If you let people pick through my shit and take something that looks cool, my death could result in 1000 smiles.
edit: I even take care of the things that I've made. They're no doubt mine, but some of those things will make someone else just as happy as they've made me.
Other than that, I agree that books want to be handled. I read a lot of books and I also re-read a lot, and my books look worn. I also accept bending pages to remember where you left the story; I never have bookmarks handy.
But scribbling? No, you're banned from my house.
It's recognized as a study aid. Especially if you're re-reading or studying a lot of material on a subject and need to go back. You can easily see what your past self was thinking or maybe quickly find a part you found interesting.
It's fundamentally useful to write up your own books.
It is just one tool among many for the acquisition and retention of knowledge.
I like used books with notes in it. It's interesting to see what someone previously reading felt was important or to glimpse into the past life of book itself.
I’m not reading a book for half-baked insights scribbled in the margins by past readers unknown.
Plus "your own books" are never truly just your own. In the example from the author of TFA, they are his family's. I wouldn't have wanted my brother's or parent's scribblings in books from our family bookshelves!
I decided about 20 years ago I wasn't going to use bookmarks anymore. If I can't find where I was, I need to reread from whatever I recognize. If I can't figure out a place to drop in and understand what's going on, I should just start over from the beginning (it'll probably be faster the second time anyway.) I also really hate dogears; they crack off in about 10 years or so.
But for books I own, I almost always annotate, highlight, mark up, write in, etc. however I want. I forgot who said it – probably Mortimer J. Adler – but writing in a book and engaging with it is the highest compliment you can pay to an author. T
Life is too short to read everything. Read what keeps your interest, page by page. If a book bores you, don't finish it. Sell it, give it to a friend, drop it off at goodwill, let it gather dust. So what? Just my two cents.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/428862.Wreck_This_Journa...
I always carry a paperback in my back pocket, and it's often margin written and beer stained. My favorite books get the worst treatment.
In regards to letting books get scuffed up, I must say I disagree as well. I like to keep all of my things shiny and new, and my books are no exception.
For many books, this is just a way of mentally noting something and letting it go enough to move on. But if I end up wanting to write a review of a book (usually a blog post, not a bookstore review), I just skim through these marked up sections. That's usually enough to guide my write up. The triple-marked sections usually end up quoted in the review.
I also write a capital R in the margin next to things I'd like to research further. Sometimes I put a question mark next to a section I'm skeptical of.
I find doing this helps keep me honest about whether I'm understanding what I'm reading or just glossing through it, and it helps pace my engagement. If I can't come up with one question or comment per page, I've probably lost focus.
[1]: https://stevenson.ucsc.edu/academics/stevenson-college-core-...
I dog-ear pages that include a lesson that I really wish to internalize and take away from the book. Something I expect to revisit often.
On top of that, I’m writing in the margins. Questions I have about what the author has written, counter-arguments when I disagree, check-boxes with descriptions of actionable tasks I can do, tangential thoughts that were inspired in the course of reading (often unrelated), ideas that I think might combine well with an insight by the author, and generally anything that I think about in the process of writing.
1. Things meant to be preserved so future generations can have them, just as you have them now.
2. Things meant to be used.
(A third category, things meant to appreciate in value, is so close to #1 that it's not worth separating out.)
Use your stuff. That's what it's for. Who do you respect more, the mechanic with a toolbox full of pristine tools without a single scratch, or the one with a box full of battered, dinged-up tools? This article's library full of factory-new books, or one full of creased, dog-eared, broken-spined books? Which child's toy had the better life, the one that's indistinguishable from new or the one that's indistinguishable from a pile of scraps and fluff?
Use. Your. Stuff. It's what it's for.
For me, category one includes all of my books. Category two consists almost entirely of food, cleaning and hygiene products, and most bedding and underwear.
I got most of my books after they had been purchased and probably read, I don't know why I should assume I was the end of the line. [edit: I mean, I have books and things that I know have had multiple owners; I've got books from Bell Labs' library that were lent out a few dozen times and touched by many more hands. Why should I scribble in them and treat them like shit again? Instead of treating them like shit, I'd rather just destroy them in a careful scanning process.]
> Who do you respect more, the mechanic with a toolbox full of pristine tools without a single scratch, or the one with a box full of battered, dinged-up tools?
If by "respect" you mean would rather hire, I'd rather hire the third guy with the well-used, very well-taken care of tools. Why would I hire a slob that isn't maintaining their equipment?
I am not arguing for treating items "like shit". That's abuse, and while abuse of inanimate objects is hardly a mortal sin, I still don't like it, and I said as much in my original post.
What I am saying is, use your stuff, and don't sweat the normal wear and tear that comes with use. There is absolutely no such thing as a factory pristine set of tools that also gets used regularly. They get scratched and dinged and beaten up, and you can see it. They will also get cleaned and oiled and maintained generally, and you can see that too.
Some of the other replies here talk about treating stuff more gently than it needs, because... well, I don't really know why. This is something I've struggled with too, and as I've gotten older (not to mention worked in product development -- you see some things there!) this has gotten easier for me, and so my life has gotten easier. A few years ago I got a new stove, way too expensive, and way too bright and clean and shiny. Then I put a big ugly scratch right into the front of it, before ever cooking anything on it. My first reaction was horror -- I damaged it -- and then I relaxed: Now I don't have to worry about scratching it anymore, I can just _use_ it without worrying about that. And so I did, and I do! There's real freedom that comes from thinking this way.
By all means, take care of fragile things. But objects have a purpose to serve, best exemplified by tools. If a tool cannot serve its purpose because it's broken or inadequate, you replace it. And if that same tool cannot serve its purpose because you are too gentle and refuse to let it, you have to replace your attitude.
No more "good china"!
My childhood toys were often nearly indistinguishable from new, but that’s not because I didn’t spend eons playing with them.
When I outgrew them, they were passed on and enjoyed just as much by the next child.
In my experience, there are two different potential meanings behind the saying “stuff is meant to be used”:
(1) Stuff is meant to be used, so don’t sweat the minor scratches, dings, and wear that comes from using it well.
(2) Stuff is meant to be used, so don’t criticize me for my absolute lack of care when I use things.
I’m very much in camp (1), and I don’t have a lot of respect for camp (2). It’s wantonly wasteful, and prevents passing down and reusing possessions.
There is power in treating things as consumable. It’s easy to only think of the cost, but this is very limiting.
I am extremely gentle by nature. In high school, a teacher didn’t believe I’d read a book because it looked so new. The binding was still tight.
This gentleness is not always warranted. What breaks me out of it is thinking in terms of trades. Trading textbooks for an education is a great trade. If it will help you to rip out the pages and put them on your wall, go for it.
I recommend everyone visit an estate sale at least once. You're not going to buy anything, but rather to see all the things someone valued, but that have almost no value to everyone else.
That 90+ piece set of beautiful cutlery in silver? The highest bid will be below its melt value, because that's exactly what they'll do with it.
The well-crafted piece of furniture that was made by an artisan from carefully selected wood? No one is bidding on it at all because it doesn't fit modern aesthetics or considerations.
The carefully curated personal libraries, with no particularly collectible editions or rare books? Being sold for weight.
It really helps put this in perspective as to just exactly what is worth preserving and what isn't. What is important to you, but essentially junk to everyone else.
One of the key contention points is whether one respects the book/author by keeping the book pristine vs marking it (or whether the book as a physical object deserves respect). This is purely subjective, and has a historical precedent. Books used to be freaking expensive, so of course you would want to preserve it. Now, most books can be printed cheaply, but some people still like to keep their possessions clean. There are many other examples of this divide, like how people use their tools, pots, kitchens, cars, laptops, etc.
The other is whether actively engaging with the book helps with understanding and recall. I don't think there is much disagreement on this point, but this does not require marking the physical book. You can use post-it notes and such, but in the digital age, arguably marking a physical book is inferior to annotating a digital copy and cross-hyperlinking it with other books and your personal knowledge base. Unfortunately both the technology and copyright law is lacking in this area as far as I'm aware, but rather than debating whether to write in physical books, I think everyone would benefit from innovating on the digital side of things.
The concept of breaking a book into "chunks" and then individually scheduling those chunks to be read via an spaced repetition algorithm. The thing is that incremental reading is much harder to do with physical books. And you would have to either calculate the next schedule(hard) or use a simple leinter box system(loss of efficiency).
I wonder if normal reading is this "pristine" reading and incremental reading being the "messy" reading.
But no, I had not heard of incremental reading in this sense. So after reading the section on regular languages in the Cinderella book one would reread it before moving on to context-free languages?
In fact, every time I see someone grab a book in perfect condition off a shelf and then proceed to crack the spine as if it's some sort of required ritual before even considering whether to read the book, I feel like I die a bit inside.
This doesn’t strike me as mindful behavior.
There are also some "special collection" things: mineral collections, electronic kits, etc. The only rules with those is they have to be put away. They've got a low table, a high table, and couple of comfy chairs, and reading lamps.
We ask them not to read them while eating or drinking (other than water bottles) and to keep the library items downstairs. It's because we have toddlers who don't have access to the library and they like to tear up books. We also ask them not to fold over pages (in paperbacks this results in the pages eventually breaking off, sometimes shockingly soon due to acid paper becoming brittle). I ask them not to write in the books. We have a huge supply of yellow pads and other notebooks of various sizes and they are welcome to use them, and an endless supply of pencils and pens.
I make a distinction between honest wear and carelessness. I love it when I see the books showing wear from reading. A lot of the books are somewhat rare and were hard to obtain. They can read those just like the others. I do have a special collection of signed books upstairs in my bedroom but most of those books have "reading copy" mates in the library. I don't love it when I see that someone's left it upside down on a dirty floor and the spine is split or a cover has been torn off. That's not honest wear - someone let a toddler at one of the library books without supervision.