To me, it depends on the book, and why I’m giving it.
Some books are, essentially, objects of art unto themselves. What is important is the book-as-object, not necessarily the information or stories in them. If giving a book-as-object, it is important to the gift that it be in the best possible condition; so no reading it in advance.
In other cases, what is important is not the book-as-object, but the experience of reading it. Such as: “I just read this awesome book, and I know you will love it - it has you written all over it!”. In that case, neither I the giver nor the recipient much cares what form the book-as-object takes - used, electronic, whatever. I could not care less about giving one I’ve read before.
In yet other cases - and the sister in the OP may well be one of them - what is important is the experience of being first with the story. For example, the new “Harry Potter” novel has just come out, and all the teens are wild to get it - Sis, here’s a copy I got for you, hot off the press. In that case, reading it first detracts from the gift, because being first with the story is in effect part of the gift.
This si why analogies to soap, or sweaters, or the like are not really useful. Those things have value only as objects. A book is unusual because it has value in various ways, and nowadays need not have any value as an “object” at all - for example, an e-book. So there is no absolute answer to the question, it should depend on circumstances.
I don’t have problems either with “giving” someone a book I’ve read already as in “Hey, I just read this and it’s really good, Here, you can have it.”
But that’s quite different than “gifting” someone a book I’ve read as in “Merry Christmas! I got you this book as a present. It’s really good as I spent the past week reading it.”
“Giving” someone used items, sure.
“Gifting” someone used items, not so much.
There’s a reason the Marines only take “new” toys for tots and goodwill takes the used stuff.
I have similar agreements with my mother and one of my brothers; we also often give each others books we’ve bought, didn’t like enough to keep, but thought the other person would like. Thing is, since we often have incompatible calendars and can go weeks without seeing each other, often having the gift-giver read the book beforehand is the best way to make sure the recipient can talk about it with the gift-giver within a reasonable timeframe. These conversations are, for us, part of the gift.
But for anybody with whom I didn’t have a similar agreement no, I wouldn’t do it. When something’s intended use is as a gift, that is its first intended use.
I don’t really agree with the distinction. Are you claiming a used book can never be given as a gift? That goes against the grain. I’ve both given and received used books as gifts, without giving it a thought. Indeed, some used books are extremely valuable. Would you be insulted at receiving a valuable first edition because it was “used” and not “new”? That makes no sense to me.
Thev reason why only new toys are acceptable for gifts for tots has, of course, nothing to do with this discussion - the reason is that toys for kids, particularly stuffed goods, can transmit parasites and diseases. Presumably not so much an issue with a book.
Really, there is no rational reason why a used book isn’t ever acceptable as a gift - other than the bare assertion. And if a used book is okay as a gift, why does it matter whether it is used by the giver or someone else - other than in the examples I have given? If (for example) I’ve owned a valuable first edition in my library for years, maybe occasionally read it, and then choose to give it to someone who is (say) also a collector as a gift, why should they be annoyed? I would not be.
No doubt there are some cases where gifting a book you have read is in bad taste - indeed, I’ve mentioned a few in my first post - but to my mind, claiming it as some sort of absolute rule strikes me as simply incorrect. It depends on the situation.
The people who think it’s OK to buy a book for a friend/relative and then read it first - is it still OK to pick a book from my bookshelf, one that’s been there for, say, six months and give that as a birthday/Christmas present?
It depends on the book. If there’s a book that’s been sitting on my shelf for many years which I expected to read at some point and I now realize that I will never get around to reading, I would think about tossing it into the box that I have for books (and other items) that will be given to charity as soon as the box is full enough. However, suppose it occurred to me that it’s exactly the sort of thing that a niece would like. Then why not let it be part of her Christmas presents? Of course, this assumes that it’s in good shape.
I should have pointed out in my last post that I always give a box full of small things to my nieces, nephews, quasi-nieces, and quasi-nephews. I find that it gives them much more enjoyment than an equally expensive single present. The box of new and used books, odd little toys, art items, science kits, or whatever I’m giving them that year will last them longer than the single expensive present, which may get broken quickly anyway.
Collectibles are a totally different class of gift than ordinary goods. Even considering that, a used gift isnt automatically verboten. My neighbor gave her husband a used bicycle for a gift. Totally appropriate. However, she didn’t buy the bicycle so that she could secretely use it for a while before giving it to him.
It isn’t that the book is used, it’s that the giver bought it with plans to use it before giving it away.
I think he’s saying that if you use the book, it is something you are giving away, but lacks any of the specialness and generous intent some of us think is a necessary component of gift-giving.
It’s not that someone used it. It’s that you used it, especially if it were purchased with the intent of you using it.
Again, for some of us for who this distinction matters, it’s all about the status of the book when it comes into the ostensible gift-giver’s possession. At the point of acquisition, it becomes a gift belonging to the recipient, not a tool, not something just lying around for my use. It’s theirs. If I wanted it for myself, I should have bought myself one. Gift-giving, for me, isn’t about killing two birds with one stone. It isn’t about some sort of weird efficiency of giving myself a bonus gift by making use of what I bought for someone else. And it isn’t about my utility.
If you’re a read it first kind of person, how do you know that your decision to buy someone a book isn’t influenced by the fact that you might want to read that book yourself?
Aren’t you concerned that maybe a better choice for your friend may have been that other book you have no interest in reading?
Speaking of cars, I was going to buy my little sister a car for Yule… but I’d wanted to test drive it first to get a feel for whether it was in appropriate shape for a young lady who isn’t as sophisticated as I am when it comes to maintenance.
Apparently though, that’s not done these days, as the modern materialist wants goods that are unsullied by use. I guess I’ll mail-order her a gift basket instead… at least it’ll be “new”.
