Rule for throwing out books - If not read or referenced within a year it's gone

I’m trying to reduce clutter. I have several boxes of books, and with many of these books I have never really read or used them, regardless of how interesting they seemed when I got them. The notion that I’m going to read them “someday” is getting a little tired. I read a SDMB thread the other day when the relative of a poster implemented this rule for his books to reduce clutter.

I think the “if unused or unread in one year” rule makes the most sense unless it’s a book with special significance. Thinking that most of these are possibly going to useful “someday” seems like a silly notion. and contributes to effectively useless books cluttering up your environment.
What rule do you use for throwing out or donating books?

I feel the same way about girlfriends.

Another suggestion: If it’s public domain and thus available via Project Gutenberg, Google Books, or something similar, and there’s no particular value in your copy (beautiful edition, rare printing, whatever), then get rid of it.

When the bookcases are full and there are stacks on the floor by the bed and in the closets.

How long I’ve had a book without reading it – that doesn’t work. I’ll hear someone talk about a great book and think ‘I gotta get that’, only to remember that I had the book years ago and gave it away during a cleanup frenzy.

I’m a lot more careful lately. I’ve given away a lot of books that I might like to read again, especially “difficult” books that I read when I was too young to appreciate them.

great system. Have your book shelf, when it gets full either throw stuff out to fit more or make the decision to by another bookcase.

Exceptions, books that become dated (computer books), books that are so bad you don’t want anyone else to read, or books that have value still on half.com

I pretty much only get rid of books when I can pass them to someone else. Which I do often, but my apartment still looks like a mix between a infoshop and a used book store. Can’t help it, I reread or reference stuff all the time.

My rule is paperbackswap.com, I guess. The desire to get a new book overrules any compulsive need to keep a book ‘in case.’

I agree in principle, but a year is too short a time. I have useful books that I might not refer to every year. Ten years is more like it, unless the book is obviously out of date.

I refuse to buy books anymore. I found this place called a “library”. Apparently you can just take out bookd for free and give them back once you are done. It works with DVDs too.

You can also donate your own books to your local library. Mostly they will keep them in their collection, so you can borrow and read it if, magically, all of a sudden you do have the time and urge to read that particular book.
That last idea makes it easier for me to reduce my books.

The marginal cost of keeping a book approaches zero, so unless I haven’t read it once within a couple years of having bought it, or if I’ve read it and have zero interest in reading it again, I keep it.

I disagree re “cost”, book clutter, like any other clutter, can turn your house into a cluttered shithole when it starts spilling over, and you start making book stacks on available flat surfaces. There is a negative lifestyle “cost” to having book clutter.

astro, I am with you on the clutter issue. Some people seem to be naturally neat and organized people, and those people probably don’t have to worry about this issue so much. Me, I have to worry about this issue. If I am not constantly vigilant, my house will turn into a cluttered shithole that looks like it needs intervention from a TV reality crew.

Anyway, my basic rules are as follows. I keep books that:

  • Are reference books, e.g. cookbooks, dictionaries, etc.
  • I will want to reread multiple times so that it becomes annoying to have to keep getting the book from the library.
  • Are unavailable or difficult to obtain from the library.
  • Are signed by the author or were a gift that has deep personal significance (e.g. the book of poetry my grandmother gave me on my 8th birthday). I am extremely conservative with defining “deep personal significance.” The set of fantasy novels that my brother got me one year for Christmas because he didn’t know what else to buy me does not count as personally significant.

That’s about it. Everything else goes. If I think I will reread the book, but only very occasionally, it gets donated. I periodically review my stacks and cull out anything that doesn’t meet the criteria. I also don’t buy books anymore, so the stash keeps getting smaller as the years pass. I am OK with this. I used to think that having a huge book collection was a sign of being a learned person, or was a mark of honor or something, but now I think they just collect dust and add clutter to my life. If I want to read a book, I’ll get it from the library, and then bring it home and enjoy reading it in my tidy, clutter-free home.

I like your rule!

I recently started tossing books with vigor since my Kindle arrived.

Even if I have to buy all of my stuff again in Kindle format, it is far better than having all of those books in boxes that I would never find and therefore would never read again.

I rarely if ever sell or get rid of books. I have quite a collection, and re-read most of them regularly. I don’t get rid of CDs or DVDs either. I keep them as neat as I can, but I’d rather have them than want them and find that they are not available due to being OOP.

Clutter be damned. If I could live in Barry Hansen’s house, I would.

Wow… I find that your rule would be absurd in my life. Ten years? I gotta tell ya, If I’m keeping a book so I can refer to up to nine years, eleven months, and Twenty-Nine days later? Then I have some serious pack-rat problems.

Most any book you cold use for reference, that is 10 years old is likely to be found on the internet anyway. Not the book itself maybe, but whatever it is you’re trying to reference.

I’d be interested in you posting some of your older titles that you’re hanging on to that long. I just can’t imagine it.

Oh, and I want to add… as far as keeping books around because I’ll re-read them. At most that would be about 10 books, and only two* that I can think of off the top of my head. Why re-read when there’s so much else to read for the first time?

*Books for sentimental reasons don’t count. I have my mom’s bible for example. I don’t even consider that a book. It’s a family keepsake. Oh, and the two books are The Godfather and The Princess Bride.

There used to be a used bookstore around here that would buy books in good condition and give you a few bucks, or credit toward purchase in their store. It’s no longer around because of the eeeconnnooommmyyyyyy. My local library (and others in the county) has a bin where you can donate books i.g.c. (no textbooks, encyclopedias, or magazines). They may re-use them, but most likely they will end up at a gigantic once-a-year used book sale, where they raise thousands of dollars. (Of course, I end up hauling home another load of books, read them, re-donate when done - it’s a vicious circle, but a fun vicious circle.) … The county recycling program might take them, but every place is different. Our county was accepting old books for recycling at one time, but I don’t know if they think its worth it. Besides, the one time they did, booklovers raised Holy Hell and demanded first crack at looking through the discards - it was a big mess and no one was sure just who was in charge.

Would you discard a friend just because you haven’t seen them in a year? Books are to be treasured, not tossed about. Unless you’re talking Tom Clancy, of course. Those things head for the landfill once the flight’s over.

I just by bigger bookcases.

I’ve re-read maybe 10-15 books in my life, and since I’m old (and a smoker), it doesn’t make a lot of sense for me to hang on to books for re-reading, but I can’t help it. I get something from looking at them. They elicit a memory of what was going on in my life when I read them. The bookshelves are kinda like a scrapbook, but one that only I can interpret.