The author wants to weed out an old sewing book from the '60s. Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it? Also, the author's willingness to weed out the book seems very influenced by the book's dated aesthetics:
"Note the “groovy” cover."
"I want to weed this one based on the home decorating in the last picture below."
Here's how amazon reviewers felt about the book:
"Just what I needed to use my vintage sewing machine feet more effectively which was original intent when I bought the book but wow'd by the great info for sewing and illustrations. Great resource book to have whether beginner or advanced"
"This book is great if you have any older vintage Singer machines."
"It's the complete guide. Good for beginners to experienced. 72 yrs old male. father was upholster, mother drapery and seimstress, Good for helping me out for what I forgot"
Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it?
For most libraries, I think so. By which I am referring to general purpose community libraries. They have limited space, and keeping books on hand that nobody looks at is not a good use of that space. I wouldn't expect any of the public libraries in my area to keep obscure titles that are rarely touched.
Some other libraries purpose to be more of an archive, a repository of knowledge; I would expect such libraries to be slower to discard things.
Really, though, this seems like a great opportunity for scanning and digital preservation... copyright woes aside...
> Really, though, this seems like a great opportunity for scanning and digital preservation...
Now you've traded your problems of having one collection with having two. Not to mention the choice (and constant migration!) of hardware media, data formats, etc. Are you going to be able to even read these digital files fifty years from now? Who's going to maintain this? Are you going to add a whole IT dept to your local library to keeping this system running?
None of this is impossible, of course. But it's not free and it's not trivial.
Well, no, it's not a great opportunity for every local library to do this. As you suggested, they really don't have anything remotely like the staff and infrastructure.
But it shouldn't be a job for every local library. All that is needed is one copy of the book; not every copy of the book. And for more recent books, there shouldn't even be a need to scan it; there should already be a digital version (whether if it was made publicly available or not).
Granted, long-term storage and viewing of digital files seems like an open-ended problem in itself, regardless of who is handling it. But so is long-term storage and viewing of physical books. The books take up space, must be handled with care, and will deteriorate eventually (though hopefully slowly as preservation methods have advanced).
I think they're overloaded. I donated some books 18 months ago, and they still don't show up on Open Library. And many were popular books published in the last few decades, not obscure old books.
I think it is reasonable for group of libraries to have some central storage where they move 1-2 copies of old books and then get rid of rest. I think that is not excessive requirement. Ofc, that does mean need to have larger group of them working together.
I wonder if anyone has ever put a name to this viewpoint: "I don't intend to use it, nor do I intend to contribute to its upkeep, but I expect it to be available."
I'm not sure, but I think your comment is meant to be be sardonic.
I get that angle, but IMO there are some things that legitimately fall into that category, to a degree. Things that benefit others, or "society in general", but not me in particular.
For instance, I get no direct benefit from paying for public education (I'm done with school myself, no children), but I like to live in a society that is generally educated. So, I happily pay my taxes.
I suppose this might somehwat go against your "nor do I intend to contribute to its upkeep" provision, but I don't particularly track down and intentionally discover just every which way my tax dollars are spent, yet still I think its a good idea to pay that money, for the various things it provides for various people, even if it's not me directly.
Or to bring it back to the discussion at hand: It seems reasonable to wish (though not expect, per se) that a library has certain books available to the community, even if I don't personally read them. It's the fact that nobody is checking them out that makes them a waste of space in this particular instance.
> Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it?
That is precisely why a public library should get rid of it. There's a limited amount of shelf space; a 60-year-old book which nobody is reading is a waste of that space.
I find it fascinating that there is so much hand-wringing in the library world about challenges to books that a small part of the public finds offensive. Claims of obscenity, etc. that libraries then celebrate during Banned Books Week. Yet, this site shows just how willing librarians are to throw out books they personally find offensive. They are in charge of the collections, I get it, and it's not that big of a deal, but it's an interesting tension. Part of me wishes librarians would be just a bit more neutral in proclaiming what is definitively offensive or not.
For example, this is from the entry for the 1957 book "Rocket Power and Space Flight".
"The author talks to the “fellows” who wrote him letters and uses the pronoun “he” and “him” throughout the book. Reason #1 to weed it."
Sure, this is an old book and would probably get weeded anyway. But why make such a big deal about community members objecting to material when you yourself object to so much material?
> "The author talks to the “fellows” who wrote him letters and uses the pronoun “he” and “him” throughout the book. Reason #1 to weed it."
JFC. This was taught as standard usage until very recently. It's silly to fault a book published before, I dunno, 2010 or so if I'm being generous, for that.
I don't care for the name or the attitude. It's surprising to me that librarians would be so snarky about books. Many of these books indeed don't belong in small community library collections because they are outdated and no longer useful to most patrons (they would probably be of interest to historians or other academics). That doesn't make them 'awful.'
> Many of these books indeed don't belong in small community library collections because they are outdated and no longer useful to most patrons (they would probably be of interest to historians or other academics). That doesn't make them 'awful.'
Honestly I wouldn't limit it to "historians or other academics." I'd think having a collection immaculately-curated for the present day sensibilities would create/reinforce a false impression that the present is timeless. I think it's good to come into contact with everyday things the reflect the recent past, even if it's just to get a sense of motion. And (realistically) the only place where that might be possible with books is a community library.
I shudder at the notion of calling any library patron (who is looking for a book to read) "not an academic".
In this country you don't need a license to learn.
People like this don't realize that it's their own epitaph they're writing. They're creating a community that disdains the fairly recent past, with the result that they'll be disdained in the fairly near future.
Not a fan of the over-opinionated framing. It seems like mainly a list of things that are "dated" (which I'd personally find pretty interesting, for various reasons) and/or politically incorrect from the author's orientation.
Some of these books may have some limited historical interest. That's fine. But that doesn't mean they should be in a public library, especially when they run the risk of misrepresenting historical information or beliefs as truth.
That book looks interesting, and the blogger's justification for weeding it is "I don't understand video game development", not "there is a more modern book to use instead".
> Is it better to misrepresent contemporary beliefs as truth?
The possibility that a modern book may be incorrect does not override the fact that older books about rapidly changing topics (like the book on HIV/AIDS) will contain information which has been superseded or disproven, or that compilations of time-sensitive information (like the 1989 directory of self-help groups) are useless when they become outdated.
> That book looks interesting, and the blogger's justification for weeding it is "I don't understand video game development"...
The more detailed justification is: this is a simple book (48 pages, large type, lots of pictures) made for children. Nuances like "computers don't use BASIC anymore" or "the video game industry has changed a lot since then" are likely to be lost on them -- and, to be frank, there was never a lot of concrete information in the book to begin with.
I actually remember checking that exact book out from the library as a kid! The section in programming in BASIC included a code snippet which had your computer beep, which I could never get to work in QBASIC from what I remember.
Oh, nice find. And that just cements my feelings that this book should have been weeded years ago:
* The author conflates the NES with all "home game systems". An entire chapter titled "how it works" describes the NES (in very broad terms) without ever acknowledging the existence of other game systems -- not even the SNES, which came out six years before the book was published.
* There are some unforced technical errors in the book, like claiming that a device called a "synthesizer" is used to "translate [sounds] into computer codes", or that "with an RGB monitor, the signals go straight from the CPU to the screen". This is not a carefully researched and written book. It's an author's quick swing at "kids like video games, we should write a book about those".
* Despite what you might assume from the excerpt, the book does not actually provide any actionable information about game programming. The BASIC snippet seen on the web site is only used to motivate a claim that games contain "lots and lots of commands", not to suggest that the reader can program a game.
I've visited this site in the past and felt like the title sort of over-promises.
I was expecting some truly awful stuff with hilarious commentary in the vein of the Gallery of Regrettable Food, but most of this is just 'This book is old and has outdated information and therefore is awful in terms of suitability for a public library collection'.
Well, except for the 'Build your own bazooka at home' one, I guess.
I think a lot of commenters are missing the point of this site. It's an opinionated collection of books they think should be weeded. They're specifically talking about libraries trying to provide information to the general public. They explain (emphasis mine):
> Weeding is an essential component of library collection management. Most libraries simply do not have unlimited space, and we must continually make room for new materials. Weeding is necessary to remain relevant to our users and true to our missions. Remember – *unless your library exists to archive and preserve materials for the ages*, we are not in the business of collecting physical things. We collect information and provide access to information. We love books as much as anyone else, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made. How many times have you said, “But I just bought that!” and then realized it was ten years ago?
These are my favorite books. I love dated books because it's great way to look into the past. The internet is awful for that purpose. Some day people will wonder what the 2010s were like, and nobody will know.
I understand that libraries have to prioritize what uses space in their circulating collections, but does "old book" really equal "awful book"? A few are in the awkward space between being current enough to be useful today and old enough to have historical interest, but many of them are just a little outdated in appearance and tone, which in no way means they can't be a valuable part of a library collection.
As some commenters pointed out, the resulting Bazooka would have a decent chance of killing/maiming the operator, and a negligible chance of doing anything to the intended target.
There's a rumor that some three-letter agencies surreptitiously published "subversive" literature containing explosives-related recipes of this ilk in the hope that people inclined to build bombs would use the recipes to take themselves out of the gene pool.
A much safer alternative, which is arguably a decent approximation of the real thing, is to build your own potato cannon. I have a lot of fond memories of being seventeen and blasting potatoes to smithereens.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the book is describing. The ingredients (like a length of PVC pipe and a Nichrome hot-wire) certainly match, although a modern implementation would probably use a piezoelectric igniter instead.
I love resources like this. I think in our present world where we are constantly bombarded with so much "content," things like this make you stop and think and "triangulate" a bit. Like, this is terrible and someone sacrificed dead trees to make it; think about how much of what you may be looking at might be this level of crap, or worse.
OK, so I'm supposed to believe that some book about pregnancy is "bad" simply because of the date, and the fact that a particular library's copy of it is in great condition?
Not a single citation from the content?
If this were a tenth grade essay, I would give it a D.
"Note the “groovy” cover."
"I want to weed this one based on the home decorating in the last picture below."
Here's how amazon reviewers felt about the book:
"Just what I needed to use my vintage sewing machine feet more effectively which was original intent when I bought the book but wow'd by the great info for sewing and illustrations. Great resource book to have whether beginner or advanced"
"This book is great if you have any older vintage Singer machines."
"It's the complete guide. Good for beginners to experienced. 72 yrs old male. father was upholster, mother drapery and seimstress, Good for helping me out for what I forgot"
- https://awfullibrarybooks.net/sewing-fundamentals/ - https://www.amazon.com/Singer-Sewing-Book-Complete-Guide/dp/...
Also, the groovy cover is awesome.