How did bookporn not post this?
WHAT SORCERY IS THIS
I KNEW THOSE GOLDEN PARTS WERE HIDING SOMETHING. I JUST KNEW IT.
Well then, let me show you, because that’s what I do for a living.
Right now, it’s this time of the year, and the little ones have just freshly hatched:
You’ll notice they’re still blind and naked when they hatch. So I make them little coats to keep them warm during their first winter:
See how they happily line up to put them on:
See? Better. Now they’re ready to go and explore the world.
And if they make it through the winter and we take good care of them, they will grow up to be strong and wise like their older fellows:
So, in case you were ever wondering, now you know.
FRIDAY! I need one of these and a cocktail. Have a great long weekend everyone!
Yeah, invisible people are generally more impressive than kindles
Whoever made that can kiss my ass. Not everybody can afford or have space for lots of books. They might not want a lot of physical books either. The point of owning books - be they paper or electronic - is to read. The format is irrelevant. Do you think Neil Gaiman, John Green, J.K. Rowling, George R. R. Martin, or other writers really give more than two shits about what format you buy their books in? They get paid either way and in the end, you’re reading their works and that’s all that matters.
I love books but I don’t fetishize them because I don’t have room for them because real estate is expensive and I can’t afford to have a place to sleep and a place to store physical media. I can store thousands of books digitally and still have constant access to the information they contain. Same goes for music. My depth of knowledge is not lessened just because I don’t put the things I know out on display. P.S. Why are digital images okay? Shouldn’t the original poster have mailed me a print of this photo?
Yes, that giant bookshelf IS more impressive. And Buckingham Palace is more impressive than my one-bedroom apartment in Santa Monica.
But it’s not a contest.
I wish people would start fetishizing reading like they fetishsize books.
See that bookshelf? That’s an impressive bookshelf. That bookshelf costs a bunch of money. The room that contains that bookshelf cost a lot of money. So the structure/house that contains that bookshelf cost a lot of money.
Space = money.
We don’t all have a lot of money.
Not to mention, if you have to move, those books will have to packed in boxes that will have ot be loaded on some sort of conveyance by some person or persons. That will cost a lot more money than simply moving a Kindle/e-reader.
What’s the point of a book? Is the point to read a story, absorb a different point of view, learn something? Or is to prove to someone that you could do these things, by having a physical representation of the book in your home? After all, it’s way easier to judge someone when their books are on display rather than tucked away in digital form.
How about let’s stop judging people how they consume information. Books = eReaders. TV = Internet. Los Angeles = New York. (Just seeing if you’re paying attention.)
TL:DR? Stop being a classist dickhole.
I was gonna just “like” this but I wanted to highlight that I agree with my buddy Slackmistress on this whole space thing. In a practical sense, it’s just terribly inefficient.
Sure there are parts of the reading experience that are better on paper. But the E-Reader existence opens up a lot of elements that are just clunky with books. Reading in the dark, autobookmarking, highlighting, accessibility, and my personal favorite… SEARCH.
Every book I’ve read in the past 3 years has been on an e-reader. Sure I actually go and buy physical copies of my favorite books just to keep as mementos but it’s just way more efficient to have an e-reader.
If I want to find a passage or a topic or phrase in a great book well guess what, I can search it. If I’m waiting around for something (DMV, Plane, Whatever) and I want to re-read something real quick for inspiration well guess what, it’s with me and I can type a few words and swipe right to the passage.
I’m become a pretty minimalist person, so I try to keep my life lean and efficient. So if I couldn’t read on my devices, I wouldn’t be reading books. And that may sound weird to many people but it’s the truth and I’m sure I’m not alone in it.
So yeah, I may agree with parts of that photo. It does look more impressive but it’s not more efficient.
OK but…what about the invisible person?
1. The above are all excellent points.
2. Ownership of an ereader and physical books are non mutually exclusive. I’ve had a Kindle for 3 years and guess what? I still own pbooks too. In fact, in my tiny room in my tiny Manhattan apartment, I have 2 bookshelves! I’ll never understand this “real book readers” versus “ereaders” mentality.
3. Why anyone would ever hate on something that allows you to read books with more ease and frequency will always be beyond me (Amazon ruining traditional publishing industry is a separate argument). Plus, do you know how cool it is when someone tells me about a book they liked and within 30 seconds I can own it??
4. Alternative caption: “THIS WILL NEVER FIT IN YOUR PURSE, BE ABLE TO COME WITH YOU ON A PLANE, OR BACKPACK ACROSS EUROPE WITH YOU/THIS WILL”.
5. Yeah what about the invisible person…?
1. Hawky, didn’t you have a post about how e-readers literally enabled you to read at all because it’s physically difficult to hold books? Something I bet book-fetishizers never thought of.
2. I like the comment about how people should star fetishizing reading the way they fetishize books, but on second thought I think people DO fetishize reading—but they fetishize the reading of books, whereas the reading of “lesser” items like e-readers is to be frowned upon.
3. WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THE MAN STANDING IN FRONT OF THE BOOK SHELF PAINTED TO LOOK LIKE BOOKS?????
The bookbindings above are as odd as they are rare. In fact, I encountered my first only a few days ago while browsing Folger Library’s image database of bookbindings. The binding is called “dos-à-dos” (back to back), a type almost exclusively produced in the 16th and 17th centuries. They are like Siamese twins in that they present two different entities joint at their backs: each part has one board for itself, while a third is shared between the two. Their contents show why this was done: you will often find two complementary devotional works in them, such as a prayerbook and a Psalter, or the Bible’s Old and New Testament. Reading the one text you can flip the “book” to consult the other. The last image above is a unification of no less than seven devotional works printed by the same printer (Feichtinger, Lintz, 1736-1737), showing that the constructions could also encompass much more than just two texts. In the 20th century this type of binding enjoyed a revival with the Double Ace books, which featured two short science fiction stories.
Pics: St Andrew’s University Library, Bib BS2085.C27 (top); Washington, Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 23811.2 (two pics), STC 2907 (broidery); Chetham’s Library, shelfmark unknown (editions from 1629, 1633); Ed. J. M. Feichtinger, Lintz, 1736-1737 (from this sales catalogue). Other examples from the Folger here. A nice one auctioned off at Christie’s here.
Sao Paulo-based Brazilian artist Odires Mlászho has created a mesmerizing series of book sculptures that is inspired by Möbius Strip, a mathematical puzzle.
By painstakingly weaving the pages of thick books together, he was able to shape them into twisting formations where the parts are intricately bound to one another.
The books are weaved together in such a way that is very difficult to see where each book ends and the other begin, which gives the sculptures a surreal, dream-like quality.
Every time I see this I think to myself “You defaced a book? Hell no I’m not marrying you.”
Yeah, I feel that way too. Glad I’m not the only one. Though I really like those flowers I’ve seen made from books. I’m torn over those…
He could have gotten a blank box for a couple of dollars, photocopied the first page of the chapter, pasted it to the inside of the box, made the box look just like the book; without defacing the book.
#PRINTED BOOKS ARE NOT SACRED #THERE ARE MILLIONS OF THEM #I HAVE A LOT OF FEELS #ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WORSHIP THE PHYSICAL FORM OF BOOKS #AND NOT THE WORDS INSIDE #THE WORDS ARE THE IMPORTANT BIT #AND USING A BOOK FOR SOMETHING SWEET LIKE THIS ISN’T DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY IF THE PERSON OWNS THE BOOK. BOOKS ARE UBIQUITOUS #AND HAVING WORKED IN A USED BOOKSTORE A LOT OF THEM GET TRASHED #AND NOT JUST CRAPPY BOOKS #GOOD ONES LIKE THIS ONE #I WOULD RATHER SOMEONE USE THIS FOR SOMETHING MEMORABLE LIKE THIS THAN GET TRASHED #DON’T JUDGE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO MAKE PRETTY THINGS WITH BOOKS #BOOKS CAN BE REPLACED AND ARE NOT INHERENTLY SACRED (via andrastesgrace)
I’m in a predicament here. Normally I’m like all for doing art or other cool stuff with books, so long as they aren’t like rare and stuff…but at the same time I’m like “But THIS one is Harry Potter…”
I’ve tried to sell some Harry Potter books to a used bookstore before, they’re worth jack. There’s tons and tons and tons of them. It is AMAZINGLY easy to replace a Harry Potter book. I mean, I frown at doing this with rare, limited edition, and especially out of print books, but
Nina Katchadourian - Sorted Books
“I suddenly recalled a moment in the university library when, looking for a book, I had turned my head sideways as I walked down the stacks and thought how spectacular it would be if all the titles formed an accidental sentence when read one after the other in a long chain. Standing amidst the bookshelves in Half Moon Bay, my next move was simply to make this imaginary accident real. I spent days shifting and arranging books, composing them so that their titles formed short sentences. The exercise was intimate, like a form of portraiture, and it felt important that the books I selected should function as a cross section of the larger collection.”