Under similar circumstances, I ended up with the one-page 1740 Treasurer's Account for the Town of Cambridge, Massachusetts Bay Colony.[1]
A neighbor died, and a relative came by and rapidly dumpstered their apartment. Including a stack of family photo albums.
Now, I'd a childhood experience of family sorting things into two boxes: "toys to donate to the school sale", and "childhood photos and keepsakes". Think "all your eggs in one basket". The wrong box was then dropped off at the school. A few hours later, it had been categorized as trash, thrown out, and was unrecoverably lost.
So I salvaged some of the albums in the dumpster. And eventually got in touch with the family to ask, "are your sure?". They were. But before I got around to throwing them out again, I found the document inside a folded photo card thing. And wondered if there had been more in the dumpster, among that which I didn't salvage.
And if I died today, it would likely end up back in a dumpster. Need to find it a better home.
Some of the great writings are not in a dumpster but right in front of our eyes if only we knew it. A copy of J. S. Bach's Goldberg Variations sitting in front of everyone until 1974, in the hands of the director of the conservatory of music in Strasbourgh and then in the hands of a professor of music, it had in the inside cover fourteen canons in Bach's own handwriting, elucidating Bach's architecture like never before. An Italian visitor chanced upon the score and suggested these were Bach's own handwritten lines ...
I've always considered books just too precious to be binned or thrown away. My dad was a teacher so books were all we had, devouring whatever came our way. Sometimes rereading the same works again. We moved a lot so finding a library in the new town would be akin to finding Aladdin's cave for us. It's now a mild OCD condition in me when others don't look after my books (dog ears or folded pages. Gets my f'cking goat!). I silently judge others for not looking after their own books (jealously petting my own book with endearment). I've still kept my obsolete tech books - safe asylum.
How do people find the nerve to throw a book away? How?!
Librarians have to weed their collections regularly, or see them overrun with bad books. Due to changes in interest or deteriorating condition, some books need to be purged so that the important ones can be maintained and new ones can be brought in.
This was a liberating idea for me, as I'm a bibliophile from a family of bibliophiles. Your collection is only as good as your curation.
Keeping books for the sake of keeping books is just hoarding. And hoarding is a form of fear. Finding the nerve to throw away a book just means finding and facing the fear that drives you to hoarding.
Having cleaned up after deceased book hoarders... it's a cruel thing to do. Case after case of books, of no real interest or value, that will never get read, still sitting there rotting because OMG IT'S A BOOK YOU CAN'T THROW BOOKS AWAY.
Keep the books that are great. The books you'll read again, or use for reference in the future, or that have true sentimental value (beyond omg it's a book). I often give books away when I'm done with them - if I loved it, I probably know someone else who will love it too.
But that copy of Learn Lotus 1-2-3 in 24 Hours? Trash it. That third-run paperback of a Stephen King novel? Trash it.
I've been culling my book collection every time I move. During my last move in March I discarded a lot of books with sentimental value that were really just taking up space. Examples: my college textbooks on projective geometry and abstract algebra. I always loved how the more interesting the math, the thinner and more dense the textbook is. A pile of computer-related books. It's telling what I kept from that shelf: K&R's The C Programming Language. Stevens' Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment (I bought the former in 1993 and the latter in 1995, and they're both still useful from time-to-time.).
What I have left are books I haven't read, but plan to, and books with extreme sentimental value.
Quite often when someone dies without interested relatives, a cursory sweep of the house is done for obvious valuables and then everything else is thrown away. Appears to be what's happened here. Kind of compounds the tragedy, but in a world of plentiful stuff and expensive real estate it's hard to avoid.
You can't generalise about books. Old textbooks at a low academic level, or especially old guides to computer software, don't have a lot of intellectual value. Of course we don't want to completely lose the knowledge of what those genres of book were like (from a given period, say the 80s) but they have little practical value. They can no longer serve their original purpose, which was dissemination of useful ideas.
If you havn't read a book in a few years, it's probably just taking up space. I'd rather have an uncluttered home. My wife I probably throw out and buy 50 books a year. It supporters publishers and the physical waste is inconsequential (since wood paper is not a scarce resource).
>How do people find the nerve to throw a book away? How?!
What else do you do? I have finite space. For the most part, I donate them to my local library for their annual book sale but I imagine most of them end up in a dumpster somewhere.
As for writing in them or marking pages, some are pieces of art in their physical form, but most are just a tool for communication. I make notes and otherwise mark up books that I'm using as a source of information. They're just a tool.
I was bicycling to work today and passed by a cardboard box on the trail that had some books in it. I circled back around to get a closer look and found...a couple of dog-eared paperbacks with a Danielle Steel novel on top and a VHS tape titled something like "Christian Ministry Programs". It's still there if you want to secure them for posterity.
Lesson: Give your famous books to a library collection before you die, and your ignorant grandnephew (or whomever) throws them in the dumpster to be destroyed by rain.
It's interesting to me how we, as humans, ascribe more value to things based on previous ownership. Why is a watch worth $35000 if President <X> owned it, but only $350 if not? Is it not the same watch?
There's a lot of emotional weight in the article, "The". A watch is an interesting thing from a functional perspective, technical perspective, an artistic perspective, and a broader historical perspective. But it's an implicit consignment to a relative definition. A watch is interesting amongst watches, perhaps. Comparable between watches. Valued according to the value of other watches.
However, when you can promote that A to a The, now the thing stands as an absolute in the course of history. The watch that Buzz Aldrin wore on the moon. The pen that signed the surrender of Japan. The Cullinan I Diamond that was cut with nine sibilings from the greatest raw stone ever discovered, and set in to St. Edward's Crown. The nature of the item itself becomes second to the story and the lineage associated with it, and its value ceases to be a function of what the thing does does, and becomes one of what it has done. Omega watches are interesting and technically impressive. But if a Seiko had gone to the moon on Buzz Aldrin's wrist, it would be worth just as much.
The founding fathers have a mythical status in the US. Many observers liken it to religious worship (google "civic religion") with the founders akin to the original disciples of the faith. America's early puritan, Protestant, roots also give importance to books. The act of reading books and then writing about them is almost a form of prayer (see the Latin v. English bibles debate). So a book owned by a founding father is precious. A book modified and written upon by a founding father is a sacred text.
In addition, the american legal tradition gives great importance to the concept of original intent, understanding the mind of a document's author. Important documents such as the US constitution, and therefore many modern day legal debates, are understood through the lens of historical context. Knowing the books read by those who wrote such documents gives one argumentative power in the modern context. So these sacred books are a source of modern day power, adding to their perceived value.
I want to know why he moved the first pages to the middle. Is that some masonic thing?
It's not the item you're buying in that case, but the emotional connection to the previous owner.
I had an opportunity to buy a Parker 51 (fountain pen) once owned by Oskar Schindler a while back. I passed on it because it was part of a larger lot at auction that I didn't want, which went for more than I was willing to pay for the pen alone.
I've been looking for years for a pen that I've seen in several photographs of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, but I've yet to come across it (or any of his personal effects). I'd pay a great deal more for it than I would for an identical pen without that provenance. I mention it here because who knows? Someone might know where it is. His family moved to SoCal after the WW2, so it's within the realm of possibility.
Additional meaning and connection are emotionally valuable (especially when rare or irreproducible).
I assume you’d prefer to have Newton’s Principia, Turing’s papers, or your grandfather’s watch vs. a reproduction, even if the practical value of the information is the same.
If any of you managed to get near DC I recommend checking out his library at the LoC: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/thomas-jeffersons-library/. Despite it's age it's very fascinating. You can learn a lot about a man by his books.
Also interesting in that part of the country for lovers of the printed word is Book Thing of Baltimore. It may be helpful for those trying to find a place other than the trash for their own old books, too.
It may be controversial to say this as an American, but I believe Thomas Jefferson is easily the greatest candidate for founding father that deserves to be forgotten.
- Jefferson sired six children with Sally Hemmings, a slave on his Monticello estate.
- Jeffersions children were put to work in the fields, and never freed for decades.
- Jefferson himself whipped his own children.
- Jefferson intentionally avoided a strong opinion on emancipation and maintained a negative opinion on it frequently. He was accustomed to the opulence of Monticello and without slaves to run it, Jefferson knew his status in the merchant class would be diminished.
- Jefferson died in roughly two million dollars of modern debt. Most attributable to his lavish livestyle.
Thomas Jefferson was a complicated person, like many people throughout history, but that doesn't mean we should forget about him. There is no need to scrub history for people we don't like or disagree with. Instead, we should shine a light on all of his negative aspects, while also celebrating things that he got right during his lifetime.
Like the old saying goes, we should forget all bad things in history because that way we'll never repeat them again...!
Even beyond the absurdity of such notions, your statements paint a misleading picture. Jefferson, from the earliest days of the United States, worked to eliminate slavery. His initial draft of the declaration of independence overtly condemned slavery, though that was removed by the continental congress. Or see "Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves" [1] which was lobbied for by Jefferson for decades and passed immediately when he became president, the first opportunity it was legally possible.
On the abolition of slavery itself Jefferson took a different approach. Slavery was awful, yet it is not difficult to foresee what would happen if all slaves were immediately emancipated. It would lead to violence from both slaves and former owners, and also would likely leave the slaves themselves in an extremely difficult situation. Slaves would have had minimal to no skills, no education, no connections, and then set free in a country where success is driven by merit somehow expected to just go and make a life for themselves.
Instead of abrupt and complete abolition Jefferson proposed phasing out slavery. All slaves born after a certain date would be 'purchased' from their owners for a nominal fee by the government. The government then would handle their education, training, and then send them abroad to work as skilled independent freemen. The idea was to have a peaceful transition and give the former slaves the best opportunity of starting and creating a legacy of success for themselves. And, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps Jefferson was right. In the process of attempting to abruptly end slavery we ended up fighting a frightfully costly war with divides that remain to this day. And to this very day the descendents of slaves are still disproportionately struggling to find success in this nation.
It said that you do not look at other cultures with your own set of lens. I guess it should also be said that you do not look at other time periods with your set of lens.
I am perfectly comfortable remembering and even admiring Thomas Jefferson as a great but flawed person, just like countless people from history. I don't think the things you listed are out of the ordinary for his day. I think it's a little bit Puritanical to erase an entire generation of people because they don't hold up to an updated code of morals. I also think to be Puritanical is to be hypocritical - who knows what you are doing today that people will damn you for in the future. It's almost certainly not what you think.
Important to remember that in 200 years, people will look back at things you and I routinely do (and think nothing of) in horror and disgust. Culture changes and applying today’s lens to yesterday is problematic.
It is worth it to consider that societal norms and attitudes change over time.
In a hundred years time, do you think today's heros will be stripped of their accomplishments because they drove cars while the planet could have been saved, or they ate animals while they could have eaten plant-foods?
While I strongly disagree with you, your comment is fading and I upvoted it.
I lived a couple of miles from Monticello for about five years, and have read pretty much everything I could get my hands on about Jefferson. My opinion is that he's absolutely a man worthy of respect, remembrance, and study.
He was not perfect; no one is. He was in many ways a man of his times, and you have to consider those times when considering his views.
For instance, on the topic of slavery: Yes, he fathered children with Sally Hemings. Yes, those children were enslaved from birth and considered chattel. Yes, he maintained a public position of ambiguity on the topic of emancipation and a negative private opinion of the same.
Some context around those facts:
Sally Hemings was almost certainly Martha Jefferson's half-sister, and was of 3/4ths European ancestry. Her children were 7/8ths European, and all but one ultimately chose to move and pass as free whites.
While Jefferson's relationship with Sally was certainly a scandal at the time and abhorrent to us today, it was not uncommon in his era. It did not begin until several years after his wife's death, when he took Sally with him to France - where slavery was illegal - where they conceived the first of their five probable children. According to Sally's daughter, Madison Hemings, Jefferson promised to free their children when they came of age.
Again, it was a bit more complicated than that in practice, because it was illegal for a black person to live in Virginia more than one year after being freed. Sally was "given her time" upon Jefferson's death, which effectively meant that she was able to live as a free person and was protected from being captured and re-enslaved. One of their children "escaped" when she was about to come of age - Jefferson gave her $50, sent her to Philadelphia, and never pursued her. Again, this protected her somewhat from being captured and re-enslaved, as Jefferson continued to own her under the law. The others were freed at the end of his life.
Jefferson likely saw his children's "apprenticeships" as a means of caring for them and providing for their futures without recognizing them as his own.
As for his stance on emancipation, Jefferson believed that slavery was immoral, but that immediate manumission was impractical and would lead to serious social and political consequences, both for those who would have been freed and for the nation itself. His solution to this was to propose a "gradual emancipation" where enslaved people born after a certain date would be free and sent to an African colony. James Monroe, who was a close friend of Jefferson's throughout his life and lived nearby, served as President of the American Colonization Society, which in turn established Liberia. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, is named for James Monroe due to his role in its establishment.
So, in summary - Jefferson's views, while abhorrent to modern sensibilities, were actually quite progressive given the society in which he lived. He seems to have done his best to protect his "shadow family" with Hemings, and to set them up for success in the future.
[+] [-] mncharity|7 years ago|reply
A neighbor died, and a relative came by and rapidly dumpstered their apartment. Including a stack of family photo albums.
Now, I'd a childhood experience of family sorting things into two boxes: "toys to donate to the school sale", and "childhood photos and keepsakes". Think "all your eggs in one basket". The wrong box was then dropped off at the school. A few hours later, it had been categorized as trash, thrown out, and was unrecoverably lost.
So I salvaged some of the albums in the dumpster. And eventually got in touch with the family to ask, "are your sure?". They were. But before I got around to throwing them out again, I found the document inside a folded photo card thing. And wondered if there had been more in the dumpster, among that which I didn't salvage.
And if I died today, it would likely end up back in a dumpster. Need to find it a better home.
[1] http://www.vendian.org/1740/
[+] [-] WalterBright|7 years ago|reply
How sad. At least one can photograph the pages with a phone, as keeping those would be costless.
[+] [-] driverdan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
How about a local (or regional) museum, or university library? There are probably lots of places that would accept this and look after it.
[+] [-] gtycomb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HenryTheHorse|7 years ago|reply
The man was obsessed with reading (and gardening).
* On a related note, I'd also strongly encourage people visiting NYC to visit the JP Morgan Library. It's spectacular.
[+] [-] minhaz23|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ak39|7 years ago|reply
How do people find the nerve to throw a book away? How?!
[+] [-] sevensor|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002419
Librarians have to weed their collections regularly, or see them overrun with bad books. Due to changes in interest or deteriorating condition, some books need to be purged so that the important ones can be maintained and new ones can be brought in.
This was a liberating idea for me, as I'm a bibliophile from a family of bibliophiles. Your collection is only as good as your curation.
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
Having cleaned up after deceased book hoarders... it's a cruel thing to do. Case after case of books, of no real interest or value, that will never get read, still sitting there rotting because OMG IT'S A BOOK YOU CAN'T THROW BOOKS AWAY.
Keep the books that are great. The books you'll read again, or use for reference in the future, or that have true sentimental value (beyond omg it's a book). I often give books away when I'm done with them - if I loved it, I probably know someone else who will love it too.
But that copy of Learn Lotus 1-2-3 in 24 Hours? Trash it. That third-run paperback of a Stephen King novel? Trash it.
[+] [-] jdblair|7 years ago|reply
What I have left are books I haven't read, but plan to, and books with extreme sentimental value.
[+] [-] pjc50|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theoh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2012|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|7 years ago|reply
What else do you do? I have finite space. For the most part, I donate them to my local library for their annual book sale but I imagine most of them end up in a dumpster somewhere.
As for writing in them or marking pages, some are pieces of art in their physical form, but most are just a tool for communication. I make notes and otherwise mark up books that I'm using as a source of information. They're just a tool.
[+] [-] 13of40|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weavie|7 years ago|reply
I really like the process as a good book goes from new to well worn. A pristine book is an unread book, which generally means it was naff..
[+] [-] SippinLean|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] icantdrive55|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelcampbell|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmreedy|7 years ago|reply
However, when you can promote that A to a The, now the thing stands as an absolute in the course of history. The watch that Buzz Aldrin wore on the moon. The pen that signed the surrender of Japan. The Cullinan I Diamond that was cut with nine sibilings from the greatest raw stone ever discovered, and set in to St. Edward's Crown. The nature of the item itself becomes second to the story and the lineage associated with it, and its value ceases to be a function of what the thing does does, and becomes one of what it has done. Omega watches are interesting and technically impressive. But if a Seiko had gone to the moon on Buzz Aldrin's wrist, it would be worth just as much.
[+] [-] sandworm101|7 years ago|reply
In addition, the american legal tradition gives great importance to the concept of original intent, understanding the mind of a document's author. Important documents such as the US constitution, and therefore many modern day legal debates, are understood through the lens of historical context. Knowing the books read by those who wrote such documents gives one argumentative power in the modern context. So these sacred books are a source of modern day power, adding to their perceived value.
I want to know why he moved the first pages to the middle. Is that some masonic thing?
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|7 years ago|reply
I had an opportunity to buy a Parker 51 (fountain pen) once owned by Oskar Schindler a while back. I passed on it because it was part of a larger lot at auction that I didn't want, which went for more than I was willing to pay for the pen alone.
I've been looking for years for a pen that I've seen in several photographs of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, but I've yet to come across it (or any of his personal effects). I'd pay a great deal more for it than I would for an identical pen without that provenance. I mention it here because who knows? Someone might know where it is. His family moved to SoCal after the WW2, so it's within the realm of possibility.
[+] [-] throwawaymsft|7 years ago|reply
I assume you’d prefer to have Newton’s Principia, Turing’s papers, or your grandfather’s watch vs. a reproduction, even if the practical value of the information is the same.
[+] [-] SamReidHughes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yhippa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cestith|7 years ago|reply
http://bookthing.org/
[+] [-] nashashmi|7 years ago|reply
The rest of the wealth can be said was rightly divided between everybody else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pearl_(novel)
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpecialistEMT|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mottosso|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pandasun|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nooch|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ataturk|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nimbius|7 years ago|reply
- Jefferson sired six children with Sally Hemmings, a slave on his Monticello estate.
- Jeffersions children were put to work in the fields, and never freed for decades.
- Jefferson himself whipped his own children.
- Jefferson intentionally avoided a strong opinion on emancipation and maintained a negative opinion on it frequently. He was accustomed to the opulence of Monticello and without slaves to run it, Jefferson knew his status in the merchant class would be diminished.
- Jefferson died in roughly two million dollars of modern debt. Most attributable to his lavish livestyle.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thom...
[+] [-] camhenlin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vonzeppelin|7 years ago|reply
- He drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
- He served as the third President of the United States
- United States Military Academy was established during his presidency
- Jefferson doubled the size of the United States during his presidency
- He made sure US presence was established in the Louisiana territory
- President Jefferson abolished the slave trade
- He made an important contribution to the Library of Congress
- Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia
- He wrote a book titled Notes on the State of Virginia
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/thomas-jefferson-accomplishmen...
[+] [-] TangoTrotFox|7 years ago|reply
Even beyond the absurdity of such notions, your statements paint a misleading picture. Jefferson, from the earliest days of the United States, worked to eliminate slavery. His initial draft of the declaration of independence overtly condemned slavery, though that was removed by the continental congress. Or see "Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves" [1] which was lobbied for by Jefferson for decades and passed immediately when he became president, the first opportunity it was legally possible.
On the abolition of slavery itself Jefferson took a different approach. Slavery was awful, yet it is not difficult to foresee what would happen if all slaves were immediately emancipated. It would lead to violence from both slaves and former owners, and also would likely leave the slaves themselves in an extremely difficult situation. Slaves would have had minimal to no skills, no education, no connections, and then set free in a country where success is driven by merit somehow expected to just go and make a life for themselves.
Instead of abrupt and complete abolition Jefferson proposed phasing out slavery. All slaves born after a certain date would be 'purchased' from their owners for a nominal fee by the government. The government then would handle their education, training, and then send them abroad to work as skilled independent freemen. The idea was to have a peaceful transition and give the former slaves the best opportunity of starting and creating a legacy of success for themselves. And, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps Jefferson was right. In the process of attempting to abruptly end slavery we ended up fighting a frightfully costly war with divides that remain to this day. And to this very day the descendents of slaves are still disproportionately struggling to find success in this nation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of...
[+] [-] nashashmi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjfl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwned1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elif|7 years ago|reply
In a hundred years time, do you think today's heros will be stripped of their accomplishments because they drove cars while the planet could have been saved, or they ate animals while they could have eaten plant-foods?
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|7 years ago|reply
I lived a couple of miles from Monticello for about five years, and have read pretty much everything I could get my hands on about Jefferson. My opinion is that he's absolutely a man worthy of respect, remembrance, and study.
He was not perfect; no one is. He was in many ways a man of his times, and you have to consider those times when considering his views.
For instance, on the topic of slavery: Yes, he fathered children with Sally Hemings. Yes, those children were enslaved from birth and considered chattel. Yes, he maintained a public position of ambiguity on the topic of emancipation and a negative private opinion of the same.
Some context around those facts:
Sally Hemings was almost certainly Martha Jefferson's half-sister, and was of 3/4ths European ancestry. Her children were 7/8ths European, and all but one ultimately chose to move and pass as free whites.
While Jefferson's relationship with Sally was certainly a scandal at the time and abhorrent to us today, it was not uncommon in his era. It did not begin until several years after his wife's death, when he took Sally with him to France - where slavery was illegal - where they conceived the first of their five probable children. According to Sally's daughter, Madison Hemings, Jefferson promised to free their children when they came of age.
Again, it was a bit more complicated than that in practice, because it was illegal for a black person to live in Virginia more than one year after being freed. Sally was "given her time" upon Jefferson's death, which effectively meant that she was able to live as a free person and was protected from being captured and re-enslaved. One of their children "escaped" when she was about to come of age - Jefferson gave her $50, sent her to Philadelphia, and never pursued her. Again, this protected her somewhat from being captured and re-enslaved, as Jefferson continued to own her under the law. The others were freed at the end of his life.
Jefferson likely saw his children's "apprenticeships" as a means of caring for them and providing for their futures without recognizing them as his own.
As for his stance on emancipation, Jefferson believed that slavery was immoral, but that immediate manumission was impractical and would lead to serious social and political consequences, both for those who would have been freed and for the nation itself. His solution to this was to propose a "gradual emancipation" where enslaved people born after a certain date would be free and sent to an African colony. James Monroe, who was a close friend of Jefferson's throughout his life and lived nearby, served as President of the American Colonization Society, which in turn established Liberia. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, is named for James Monroe due to his role in its establishment.
So, in summary - Jefferson's views, while abhorrent to modern sensibilities, were actually quite progressive given the society in which he lived. He seems to have done his best to protect his "shadow family" with Hemings, and to set them up for success in the future.
[+] [-] canjobear|7 years ago|reply