Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chopping up books when they're physically too big

attainablefelicity.mattkirkland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 211 posts

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#181

Post by WillAdams »

egormakarov wrote: post #178
WillAdams wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one can damage a hardcover by not opening it properly the first time: https://www.reddit.com/r/lifehacks/comments/7sry7v/open_a_ha... (which was a lesson in 2nd grade, when we got our first-ever hardcover textbooks)

That's sure can't be true for "modern" (as in 1960s+) books? Bookstores normally allow to look inside hardcovers without being instructed on proper handling first

If you can find a book with a sewn binding (or better a pair, as-yet unopened), if you open one per the instructions, then open the other haphazardly as one reads it, you will find that over time, the book which was not opened with care will develop a directionality to its binding causing it to be cocked, while the other, so long as it is read carefully will remain square.

Typical glued texts are more prone to this, but depending on the state of the glue, may go back so square if pressed when square to correct.

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#182

Post by BiteCode_dev »

cgearhart wrote: post #146

20ish years ago I complained to my college roommate that my math book was too big. He asked if I was gonna sell it back, and I said I couldn’t—they had a new edition out, so mine was worthless. Cut it, he said. It was something I had never considered. Not for a moment. Books were sacred to me. Cut one? Blasphemy. But he was right. And so I cut it. And it fixed all of my complaints. What I learned is that some folks h…

I agree this dichotomy exists and find it useful to ponder for balancing your life.

But there is another more specific one in your context: objects are to be respected vs objects are to be useful.

My mother takes a lot of care of her objects. Her stuff lasts for very long.

Mine don't, but my life is much easier than hers because I don't think twice about making something dirty or worn. It's not alive; it's meant to make my life easier, we built it for it.

Again there is a balance: go too far and you get bad ROI out of your object.

But books fall very much into that category for me. I write on them, cut pages, turn them into a mess. They get a wild life, and then I discard them.

They are not trophies or decoration. They are not sacred.

And yet I may buy the same one 5 times for many friends, or just because I messed one up.

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#183

Post by dgunay »

cgearhart wrote: post #146

20ish years ago I complained to my college roommate that my math book was too big. He asked if I was gonna sell it back, and I said I couldn’t—they had a new edition out, so mine was worthless. Cut it, he said. It was something I had never considered. Not for a moment. Books were sacred to me. Cut one? Blasphemy. But he was right. And so I cut it. And it fixed all of my complaints. What I learned is that some folks h…

Do you mean you cut the excess margins, or cut out specific sections, etc?

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#185

Post by tylervigen »

dgunay wrote: post #183
cgearhart wrote: post #146

20ish years ago I complained to my college roommate that my math book was too big. He asked if I was gonna sell it back, and I said I couldn’t—they had a new edition out, so mine was worthless. Cut it, he said. It was something I had never considered. Not for a moment. Books were sacred to me. Cut one? Blasphemy. But he was right. And so I cut it. And it fixed all of my complaints. What I learned is that some folks h…

Do you mean you cut the excess margins, or cut out specific sections, etc?

Probably he meant the same thing as the parent post, chop it up into volumes?

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#186

Post by NoidFonsense »

ventura49 wrote: post #58

I feel like we’ve been hit by one of Michael O. Church’s troll agents. 1. Obsession with massive books. 2. High-value target (this community.) 3. Obviously bad idea that some people will treat as an earnest suggestion. 4. Oblique commentary on bad behavior by AI companies (destructive scanning of rare books.)

I've already done this in my own life. I read dune by cutting the paperback into 3 books, one for each part.

I didn't like that it was so thick, but it was a small book dimensionally. Plus it was just a cheap used paperback that would be read once. I dont like e-readers, i like to dog-ear the pages and stuff

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#188

Post by egormakarov »

WillAdams wrote: post #181
egormakarov wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sure can't be true for "modern" (as in 1960s+) books? Bookstores normally allow to look inside hardcovers without being instructed on proper handling first

If you can find a book with a sewn binding (or better a pair, as-yet unopened), if you open one per the instructions, then open the other haphazardly as one reads it, you will find that over time, the book which was not opened with care will develop a directionality to its binding causing it to be cocked, while the other, so long as it is read carefully will remain square. Typical glued texts are more prone to this,…

Would definitely try next time I buy a hardcover :) But I think this first opening rule must be some US quirk. I only see US sources for it on internet, and can't find German or Russian one

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#189

Post by firmretention »

rob74 wrote: post #158

If you think this book is too big, I'd like to remind you that there are one-volume paperback editions of The Lord Of The Rings (I have this one: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/r-tolkien-lord-rings-... ) with 1100+ pages.

I think War and Peace is the longest book I've ever read. Most editions have 1300-1400 pages.

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#190

Post by HelloMcFly »

WalterBright wrote: post #120
vintagedave wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask: what was different? This is the first time I’ve heard of this and I’ve only seen what was, likely, the new edition.

My original copy was printed in 1977. His wife's version that I have was printed in 1981. Parts V and VI were removed from the wife's version.

The removed sections:

1. Letters That Produced Miraculous Results - cut because correspondence norms had massively changed between 1936 and 1981

2. Seven Rules for Making Your Home Life Happier - cut because its 1930s-era perspectives on marriage and domestic life didn't age that well

Personally, I think some of the edits in the remaining sections are more controversial than the removal of those two sections. I think the revision lost quite a bit of Dale's charm and just felt a bit less idiosyncratic in a bad way.

Post reply on HN