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...
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."
> 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.
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.
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 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.
[+] [-] jerry1979|4 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] tjr|4 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] dgarrett|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duskwuff|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|4 years ago|reply
I wonder if they're just trolling with scanned books they've found online?
[+] [-] stolenmerch|4 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] brimble|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lupire|4 years ago|reply
Like other groups of humans, librarians have diverse opinions.
[+] [-] allturtles|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tablespoon|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] FastMonkey|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tablespoon|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] duskwuff|4 years ago|reply
Skimming through the first few pages, I see some very good examples of "dated" books which should absolutely be weeded, including:
* A book about jobs "for the new millennium" written in 1999 (https://awfullibrarybooks.net/apply-within/)
* A book about the HIV epidemic written in 1989 (https://awfullibrarybooks.net/hiv-aids-from-the-1980s/)
* A book on "Video Games: how it's made" written in 1996 (https://awfullibrarybooks.net/how-about-a-career-in-video-ga...)
* A "teen guide to birth control" from 1988 (https://awfullibrarybooks.net/teen-guide-to-birth-control/)
* A directory of self-help groups and hotlines from 1989 (https://awfullibrarybooks.net/get-some-help/)
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.
[+] [-] CommieBobDole|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hypersoar|4 years ago|reply
> 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?
[+] [-] lupire|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kube-system|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teddyh|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science#T...
These people are not librarians. They are censors.
[+] [-] jdminhbg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perihelions|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27325095 ("Book Review: Double Fold")
[+] [-] JasonFruit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omgmajk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microtherion|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jihadjihad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrm4|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 999900000999|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|4 years ago|reply
Not a single citation from the content?
If this were a tenth grade essay, I would give it a D.
@cjlm Please don't submit garbage to HackerNews.
[+] [-] bone_frequency|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watersb|4 years ago|reply
Weeding is hard.