How do you organize your books?

[cl154576]

Alphabetization, genre, country, theme, publication date – I tried a bit of all but gave up. It would be nice to leave everything in disorder but that takes too much room ...

How do you arrange your books, if you arrange them at all?

[Delta40]

Genre - from largest size book to smallest on the shelves

[Desolation]

I organize by original language, and then alphabetically and chronologically.

My top shelf is English, with authors placed alphabetically, and their books in order of release.
My second shelf is French and Russian.
And my third shelf is German and James Joyce.

[Charles Darnay]

And my third shelf is German and James Joyce.

James Joyce should be a recognized language!
***

I currently have two separate bookcases (all that I have room for unfortunately) - one organized chronologically from ancient to contemporary, the other is a mixed bag. Plays/books on Shakespeare at the top, followed by poetry and philosophy, then literary essays, history, textbooks. The bottom shelf is books on education.

[stlukesguild]

With 3000+ books I need some sort of method of organization. Most of my books are shelved according to nationality... or rather the language the author wrote in. Within that, the authors are loosely ordered chronologically. The exceptions to this are my art books (which amount for a sizable portion of my library) as well as the various teetering stacks of books around the room that I am in the process or reading, intend to read soon, or have browsed for some purpose and have yet to return to their proper spot.

[Drkshadow03]

With 3000+ books I need some sort of method of organization. Most of my books are shelved according to nationality... or rather the language the author wrote in. Within that, the authors are loosely ordered chronologically. The exceptions to this are my art books (which amount for a sizable portion of my library) as well as the various teetering stacks of books around the room that I am in the process or reading, intend to read soon, or have browsed for some purpose and have yet to return to their proper spot.

Sounds exactly like I how organize my library. Nationality/language first, then within that loosely chronological.

[cafolini]

I have a community library that's a bookstore. You invest $1/book for the first books. They buy it back for 50 cents. You put another 50 and you get another book. It's a postmodern idea not yet very popularized. They get books from donations and students work there keeping the shelves ordered.

[lawpark]

I just rearranged my books over the summer (~1500 books, only in Chinese or English) - I went with a pure chronological order - but depends on the type of books, the "date" attached is somewhat different:
1) If it is about history or the substantial content is about something that happened in the past, the date would be the last year the content is supposed to be covered. E.g. Mote's Imperial China 900-1800 would have a date of 1800.
2) If it is a classical / important author - for which the interest is the author itself, the date is the year of death for the author.
3) Other works are based on publication dates
4) There are still some odd ones - like Habermas (important author) who is still alive, I group them at the end of the bookshelves.
5) There are also some text books, linguistic and literature classics that I shelf elsewhere ...

[Delta40]

wow. makes organising books by genre seem almost unintellectual!

[Dark Muse]

I try to keep same authors together, but other than that I do not do much organization and well it would be kind of difficult to attempt to do so. Because of a lack of space being an issue my books are scattered around in too many different places to attempt a much of an organized system. I have books stacked on the floor, in the closet, in various different shelves. And I do enjoy a bit of randomness.

[TurquoiseSunset]

All classics are grouped together. The rest are divided into two main sections, the ones I have read and the ones I have to read. In those sections I keep the same authors together.

And that's it.

[Lokasenna]

Primary texts are kept in chronological order of publication, though this is slightly invented when it comes to the medieval books. Then I have all my secondary texts grouped by subject and then in alphabetical order by author. My CDs are also grouped by period, and within that by alphabetical order of composer.

[wessexgirl]

As a Librarian, I tend to do them in pretty much the way I do at work, i.e. following the dewey decimal system for non-fiction, only more loosely. My fiction is put together in pretty much the same way, except I don't do it in strictly alphabetical order, but in genres, including classics, crime, world literature etc. (like I do at work). I have recently bought more shelves, as every room is overflowing, and I have kept a shelf just for Library books, as they were just piled up on the furniture. I must stop buying books, as I am running out of house room!

[stlukesguild]

My CDs are also grouped by period, and within that by alphabetical order of composer.

CDs... now that's where I get really anal. Mine are organized first according to nationality (German/Austrian, Italian, French, British, American, etc...), then the composers are ordered chronologically (loosely... I'm not about to look up the birth dates), and then within each composer's oeuvre the works are organized according to genre... roughly biggest to smallest: opera, choral works, symphonies, concertos, chamber music, lieder, solo instrumental. Unfortunately, I have recently run out of shelf space (I must get to building some more) and so I have a couple hundred discs stacked around the room with no place to call home.:frown2:

[stlukesguild]

As a Librarian, I tend to do them in pretty much the way I do at work, i.e. following the dewey decimal system...

Ack!!! Now that's really anal. By the way... what sort of library still uses the Dewey Decimal System?

[mal4mac]

Alphabetization, genre, country, theme, publication date – I tried a bit of all but gave up. It would be nice to leave everything in disorder but that takes too much room ...

How do you arrange your books, if you arrange them at all?

Book volume does not increase with entropy. So how can disordered books take up more room?

[Des Essientes]

I use a tripartite system. On the far left of the shelves is science fiction because these books are overwhelmingly paperback with goofy cover art that extends around their spines and they would look even sillier interspersed amongst the rest of my books. Stanislaw Lem and Ursula Leguin are on the right edge of this part of the collection because I deem those authors' books noble enough to touch works of real literature. On the far right of the shelves is philosophy grouped by the author's nationalities. In the center of the shelves is everything else grouped by nationality and/or original language. Books originally in English are sub-divided into North-American, British and Irish sections unless their subject matter regards some other nationality. I.E. I think my book on Russian history was originally written in English but it goes in the Russian section nonetheless. I do not alphabetize the order of the authors within the national sections but I do make some special accomodations. I.E. I placed the Czech section next to the French section because Milan Kundera has abandoned the former language for the latter and thus his latest books comprise the vague boundry between the two.

[JBI]

Alright, well, firstly I have two libraries, one for world literature, and then a specialty library for Chinese works. I put my Sinology books in my Chinese library for convenience. I order based on genre mostly, with a big divide on time period - I have two shelves in my Chinese library, one for modern, one for ancient works, divided by genre, and then chronology. My second library is smaller, but is generally done in the same way, minus the division between ancient and modern, as linguistically there isn't as big a divide between ancient and Modern English/French/Italian/other works as there are between Chinese and Ancient Chinese works (Classical Chinese is the Latin of China pretty much).

[wessexgirl]

As a Librarian, I tend to do them in pretty much the way I do at work, i.e. following the dewey decimal system...

Ack!!! Now that's really anal. By the way... what sort of library still uses the Dewey Decimal System?

:confused5: It's the standard arrangement over here. I don't religiously follow it number by sub-number for my own stuff, but by subject, so topics are loosely grouped together.

[cl154576]

Book volume does not increase with entropy. So how can disordered books take up more room?

Well, the shelves are already there, so if I put the books on them it takes no extra room, but if I leave them lying around my desk in huge piles they take up considerable extra room. If I put them on the shelves I will want to put them on there systematically.

[kiki1982]

I organise on subject, so we've got:

a dictionary section (we are official dictionary collectors), with the most important together (up to date and un-doubled), from big to small and then the less important, also the same.

a 'geography-tourist' section with atlases, maps and tourist guides. Per country and size.Including a 1933 German atlas very incluenced by Nazi stuff. fun to read, though.

a 'trash' seection where we keep all the trash that we ever bought, tucked away behind more important or interesting stuff :D. So that includes Dan brown (don't ask, it was my husband).

a learning section where we keep all the learning books like books on sewing, knitting and things.

a religion section with a few bibles, a c'ran and a 'family guide to happiness' (which we got as a wedding 'present' from my slightly mad Jehova witness in-laws :rolleyes:). And I think we also have Mormon bible somewhere. We've got a lot of strange stuff.

a history section about social or political history, close to the geography-tourist section.

a childen's books section of all the childrens's books.

I've got a Dutch, an English, a French anda small German section. The Dutch secton is according to size and all books by the same writer together. The French section the same, the English is all paperback, mainly the same, and in order that I first read them, plus the same writer together. The German section is lying flat in front of the English section beeause they're mostly very small Reclam ones.

[stlukesguild]

Book volume does not increase with entropy. So how can disordered books take up more room?

The actually space taken up by the books remains the same... but books ordered and on the shelf eats up far less floor space and space on end tables and computer tables and such that piles randomly scattered around the room. Right now I can barely navigate my way through my office/library for having let things pile up so much as a result of being ties up with school-related crap at the start of the school year as well as running out of shelf space for my CDs.

It's the standard arrangement over here. I don't religiously follow it number by sub-number for my own stuff, but by subject, so topics are loosely grouped together.

Most libraries here are now ordered by the Library of Congress system which is far more exact... and/or ISBN numbers. I spent much of my "work-study" (college employment used to pay tuition) time converting the school's collection from the Dewey System to Library of Congress.

[lawpark]

wow. makes organising books by genre seem almost unintellectual!

I find that using "date" is one of the few one-dimensional sequence that can cut across books of all types in theory; and while ambiguity exists, determining the date is usually not highly subjective ... unlike genre ... e.g. is anthology different from encyclopedia, and is textbook a different genre, etc.

I am personally an advocate in trying to break down the artificial language / nationality boundaries ... thus organizing by pure "date" works for me.

In fact, I am surprised how many folks here arrange things by "countries" ... as it raises obvious questions as to how one would put a book like the Bible, or an author such as Nobokov.

[Paulclem]

We filled our shelves ages ago, and so they are organised by those that are here, and likely to stay, and those that will be going to the charity shop. If I kept all the books I buy, then we would be sitting on, and eating off them.

[mortalterror]

I organize by date but it still tends to break down into languages nonetheless: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Sanskrit, Farsi, Italian, English, Spanish, French, then English again. Russians would be in there after French, but I just don't like them enough to keep their books after I read them.

[Paulclem]

I don't know if you've noticed, but in the bookshops round here, they've started producing classic books with those luxourious 19th century covers again. They're great looking, but I'm not going to be seduced. I'd like a Kindle.

[Desolation]

In fact, I am surprised how many folks here arrange things by "countries" ... as it raises obvious questions as to how one would put a book like the Bible, or an author such as Nobokov.

That's exactly why I chose to sort by language instead of nationality.

[Drkshadow03]

As a Librarian, I tend to do them in pretty much the way I do at work, i.e. following the dewey decimal system...

Ack!!! Now that's really anal. By the way... what sort of library still uses the Dewey Decimal System?

Public libraries and school libraries. College/university libraries use Library of Congress.

[cl154576]

Public libraries and school libraries. College/university libraries use Library of Congress.

Do you know what systems libraries use in other countries?

[lawpark]

I organize by date but it still tends to break down into languages nonetheless: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Sanskrit, Farsi, Italian, English, Spanish, French, then English again. Russians would be in there after French, but I just don't like them enough to keep their books after I read them.

You read these in original language? Or you mean the original language the works were written?

The good aspect of classifying by date is that what mentality forms a group are likely to be somewhat close to each other, yet they are also separated by surprising works from other traditions.

[kiki1982]

My language-sorted books are by publishing language, which is mostly the original, but failing that what I read it in.

[Helga]

I use the alphabet on novels and if I have many books by the same author it is first published to last published. they are also by language I have Icelandic books and then in English.

I have poetry separated and in alphabetical order and plays.
I have books on philosophy on a separate shelf and of course my Britannica and Webster together.
I have books on WWII together on a another shelf and and collections in one book (like all of Poe) and educational books together.
I have religious books together biggest to smallest.
I have a few books separated in a small shelf mainly because they are older than my other books, they include Dr Shivago , Anna Karenina and the Canterbury tales they are just old and beautiful they can't be with other books for some reason.
I have a few books together that simply don't fit with any other like books about coffee and the Art Book
and at last I have together history and books about animals together.

the only novels I don't have in the alphabet rows are collections like in my book club they look alike so they are together and also a few books with the same cover, they just look so good together.

I love changing my system though and I take them all out every 6 months or so and change everything.

[PoeticPassions]

I organize them by author and genre. All of Dostoevsky's novels go together, followed by groups of other Russian authors. The I organize poetry separately. And plays separately. Then I organize my non-fiction separately, mainly again in groups dependent on topic (i.e. international security related books go together, ones on Africa, etc). I don't alphabetize them because I find this system sufficient.

[breathtest]

I don't really organize my books at all. I throw them together in piles, in whatever order. The bigger books usually have to go on the bottom, though, you know, the big books of collected poetry and such. But apart from that it's a bit of a free for all. The last one I read goes slap on the top of the nearest pile.

[mal4mac]

Well, the shelves are already there, so if I put the books on them it takes no extra room, but if I leave them lying around my desk in huge piles they take up considerable extra room. If I put them on the shelves I will want to put them on there systematically.

Why do you want to be so systematic?

Why not start by sticking all your reference books on the same shelf, or shelves, and then stick all your "books to read", in any order, on the other shelves.

How many books do you have? If its 'only' several hundred, you can just browse through them all when it comes time to organise your reading. I do this every few months - I bump up books that look especially interesting to the first shelf of my first bookcase. Then, when it comes to the big choice of what actually to read, I can look at the handful of books on my "favourites" shelf and make a final decision.

There is a system here, but it's about as minimal as you can get.

Maybe you could start with this - at least it would get the books off the floor quickly :) - it would be easy to add more system in a leisurely fashion (e.g. Stick Dewey labels on the bookshelves, then move a few books into position when you are looking for 'next read'... or when you feel like it...)


... but books ordered and on the shelf eats up far less floor space

I can see that books *on the shelf* take up less floor space, but why do they have to be dordered books?

What I'm getting at here is that the OP (who said he quite likes disorder...) can get to where he wants, mostly, buy just putting the books on shelves in any order!

This stops the need for setting up a complex system before shelving - which will probably lead to shelving never getting done (if he's as disordered as me...)



Most libraries here are now ordered by the Library of Congress system which is far more exact... and/or ISBN numbers. I spent much of my "work-study" (college employment used to pay tuition) time converting the school's collection from the Dewey System to Library of Congress.

How is it more exact? I've used UK libraries all my life, and always the Dewey system, and the card index/computer always led me to the books without any problem - unless some malicious type had stolen or misplaced them.

Wessexgirl *is* a librarian so arranging the books in her collection in the same way she arranges them in her library seems, not anal, but common sense!


...If I kept all the books I buy, then we would be sitting on, and eating off them.

Hmmm... make everything out of books, according to feeling. Dan Brown as toilet paper? A comfy, baggy armchair out of Dickens? Eat off folio versions of Shakespeare?

I once tried to sound proof a window using books - but gave up that idea - thought I might end up like that guy in New York who died after his books fell on him...

[mortalterror]

You read these in original language? Or you mean the original language the works were written?

I wish. No, I can only read English and French, and my French is very rusty by now since I hardly ever use it.

[stlukesguild]

I can see that books *on the shelf* take up less floor space, but why do they have to be ordered books?

What I'm getting at here is that the OP (who said he quite likes disorder...) can get to where he wants, mostly, buy just putting the books on shelves in any order!

Yes... the amount of shelf space needed doesn't change whether the books are ordered or not... however the time spent hunting for a particular book might. This depends upon the scale of your library. With some 3000+ books I could end up spending a good deal of time looking for a specific book... especially if it were a particularly slim volume of poetry such as many poetry books are.

[cl154576]

Why do you want to be so systematic?

Why not start by sticking all your reference books on the same shelf, or shelves, and then stick all your "books to read", in any order, on the other shelves.

How many books do you have? If its 'only' several hundred, you can just browse through them all when it comes time to organise your reading. I do this every few months - I bump up books that look especially interesting to the first shelf of my first bookcase. Then, when it comes to the big choice of what actually to read, I can look at the handful of books on my "favourites" shelf and make a final decision.

There is a system here, but it's about as minimal as you can get.

Maybe you could start with this - at least it would get the books off the floor quickly :) - it would be easy to add more system in a leisurely fashion (e.g. Stick Dewey labels on the bookshelves, then move a few books into position when you are looking for 'next read'... or when you feel like it...)

It's not that I like disorder, but I prefer having nothing done to having something done badly ... Books are hard to classify. I guess I am searching for an aesthetic way to arrange them, if that's possible.

Another complication comes with children's literature. I still have some children's books I am not ready to let go of, but they look hopelessly out of place beside my other books. I've tried separating them but the line can be blurry.