Under similar circumstances, I ended up with the one-page 1740 Treasurer's Account for the Town of Cambridge, Massachusetts Bay Colony.[1]
A neighbor died, and a relative came by and rapidly dumpstered their apartment. Including a stack of family photo albums.
Now, I'd a childhood experience of family sorting things into two boxes: "toys to donate to the school sale", and "childhood photos and keepsakes". Think "all your eggs in one basket". The wrong box was then dropped off at the school. A few hours later, it had been categorized as trash, thrown out, and was unrecoverably lost.
So I salvaged some of the albums in the dumpster. And eventually got in touch with the family to ask, "are your sure?". They were. But before I got around to throwing them out again, I found the document inside a folded photo card thing. And wondered if there had been more in the dumpster, among that which I didn't salvage.
And if I died today, it would likely end up back in a dumpster. Need to find it a better home.
Many years ago. At the time, it didn't seem like they were set up for it. Time to ask again. Other options include Harvard (but I've encountered town-and-gown "oh, not Harvard!" sentiment), Boston Athenæum, and Boston Public Library?
Some of the great writings are not in a dumpster but right in front of our eyes if only we knew it. A copy of J. S. Bach's Goldberg Variations sitting in front of everyone until 1974, in the hands of the director of the conservatory of music in Strasbourgh and then in the hands of a professor of music, it had in the inside cover fourteen canons in Bach's own handwriting, elucidating Bach's architecture like never before. An Italian visitor chanced upon the score and suggested these were Bach's own handwritten lines ...
I've always considered books just too precious to be binned or thrown away. My dad was a teacher so books were all we had, devouring whatever came our way. Sometimes rereading the same works again. We moved a lot so finding a library in the new town would be akin to finding Aladdin's cave for us. It's now a mild OCD condition in me when others don't look after my books (dog ears or folded pages. Gets my f'cking goat!). I silently judge others for not looking after their own books (jealously petting my own book with endearment). I've still kept my obsolete tech books - safe asylum.
How do people find the nerve to throw a book away? How?!
Librarians have to weed their collections regularly, or see them overrun with bad books. Due to changes in interest or deteriorating condition, some books need to be purged so that the important ones can be maintained and new ones can be brought in.
This was a liberating idea for me, as I'm a bibliophile from a family of bibliophiles. Your collection is only as good as your curation.
Exactly. A museum doesn’t hang some random kid’s art next to a Picasso. They don’t even have room to hang all the Picassos and some of them aren’t actually all that good. Holding onto every book you’ve ever gotten your hands on is just hoarding.
The internet has had some interesting repercussions for the idea that all knowledge is worth saving. We're producing data many orders of magnitude than ever before, and it's easier to save it than ever before, and 99% of it is completely useless and uninteresting outside of its original context, even for hypothetical future historians.
As you say, the goal shouldn't be to save everything just in case, but to weed out the irretrievably useless and carefully index the rest.
Keeping books for the sake of keeping books is just hoarding. And hoarding is a form of fear. Finding the nerve to throw away a book just means finding and facing the fear that drives you to hoarding.
Having cleaned up after deceased book hoarders... it's a cruel thing to do. Case after case of books, of no real interest or value, that will never get read, still sitting there rotting because OMG IT'S A BOOK YOU CAN'T THROW BOOKS AWAY.
Keep the books that are great. The books you'll read again, or use for reference in the future, or that have true sentimental value (beyond omg it's a book). I often give books away when I'm done with them - if I loved it, I probably know someone else who will love it too.
But that copy of Learn Lotus 1-2-3 in 24 Hours? Trash it. That third-run paperback of a Stephen King novel? Trash it.
I would agree about some books. But anything relating to technology should be kept. Already it is difficult to get copies of, for example, the Smalltalk-80 books. Technology reference books, and books that teach technology to people are books that should be kept, because they serve as some of the few documents that show that these things _did indeed exist_. Who, in a couple of generations, will be left to remember the BBSes, the features of Word Perfect, etc. Without this history we will be left to reinvent the wheel constantly.
I don't agree there. Classics should be kept - stuff like the Dragon book (compiler theory), Refactoring, Knuth's Art of Computer Programming series, etc. But frankly, most books about our industry are trash - throwaway material that will be as obsolete as buggy whips, in a lot less time. But the good books never become obsolete.
I recently picked up a copy of The Mythical Man-Month, from 1975. There's hardly a line in it that doesn't still apply today.
There was an interesting time in the mid-90's when computers and internet were gaining some steam, in which used book stores would pay top dollar for any computer related book, no matter how niche or obsolete. They've wised up considerably since then, though.
Why even that? Why should I spend an evening scanning 400 pages of junk? That's worse than just keeping the book. Trash is trash.
I could spend that time finishing Accelerate (potentially a timeless classic), or Openshift in Action (doomed to be dated and irrelevant someday, but immediately useful to me now). Those are genuinely useful to me. Hoarding is not.
I've been culling my book collection every time I move. During my last move in March I discarded a lot of books with sentimental value that were really just taking up space. Examples: my college textbooks on projective geometry and abstract algebra. I always loved how the more interesting the math, the thinner and more dense the textbook is. A pile of computer-related books. It's telling what I kept from that shelf: K&R's The C Programming Language. Stevens' Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment (I bought the former in 1993 and the latter in 1995, and they're both still useful from time-to-time.).
What I have left are books I haven't read, but plan to, and books with extreme sentimental value.
Quite often when someone dies without interested relatives, a cursory sweep of the house is done for obvious valuables and then everything else is thrown away. Appears to be what's happened here. Kind of compounds the tragedy, but in a world of plentiful stuff and expensive real estate it's hard to avoid.
Estate auctions kinda fill this gap, if there's enough "stuff". It's not uncommon to see boxes or even pallets of loosely-related possessions sell as a lot, where even they buyer probably doesn't know what all they're getting.
I've acquired a fairly large stash of firearms parts this way. There are a few valuable individual items, but in aggregate it's probably worth at least $15-20k. I probably have $250 invested in all of it, and it all fits in a single (heavy) moving box.
I've also gotten quite a few valuable fountain pens and parts for them the same way. Once I bought a ratty old desk for $50 because the drawers were full of office supplies that I wanted, including a couple of vintage Waterman pens. I dumped them into a box and gave the desk to the other person that was bidding on it so I didn't have to haul it home. She was ecstatic to get the desk for free, and I was happy to get ~$1k worth of vintage pens for almost nothing.
Even with an interested relative, sometimes there's just too much stuff. My father-in-law left a basement full of computer stuff. There was some Heathkit hardware, TRS-80s, a couple of AT&T 3B2's, tons of PCs, a Bell Labs MAC Tutor, old calculators, thousands of CDs and floppies, piles and piles of printouts of old code, plus books. Some of it was probably valuable to someone, somewhere, but it was a full room, chest deep with stuff, and just hauling it all out took several days. Nearly all of the hardware went to an electronics recycler.
You can't generalise about books. Old textbooks at a low academic level, or especially old guides to computer software, don't have a lot of intellectual value. Of course we don't want to completely lose the knowledge of what those genres of book were like (from a given period, say the 80s) but they have little practical value. They can no longer serve their original purpose, which was dissemination of useful ideas.
If you havn't read a book in a few years, it's probably just taking up space. I'd rather have an uncluttered home. My wife I probably throw out and buy 50 books a year. It supporters publishers and the physical waste is inconsequential (since wood paper is not a scarce resource).
The question is donate them to where. Thrift stores generally don't want them and 90% of library donations just wind up in the sell pile too before being tossed.
>The library could, almost certainly, use the money
Ehhhh. Those books probably cost more to store than they make in profit. Books take up a lot of space and are likely selling for $1 (hardcover) or 10 for $1 (paperback) at the use book sale. Used books are really hard to sell, and there are a lot of them lying around.
My wife had a collection of hundreds of paperbacks that the public library refused to take and Goodwill suggested we throw away, so we sent them to the recycling center.
Is this true for libraries too? I was really bummed awhile back when I gave my local library some very good CS canon type textbooks and never saw them go on the shelves alongside the current crop of "Python for Dummies" type stuff. Is there any way to help them separate the wheat from the chaff when you donate?
Yeah, that was my assumption as well. But upon reflection, I fear they don't have the expertise to tell the difference between quickly-obsolete texts and those that are more timeless. It can be bewildering even with expertise in the field, so I don't begrudge them the difficulty. But maybe you're correct that they have a better knowledge of what is useful to the local community, and perhaps decided these were too academic and sent them to a university library instead. But personally, I think it's a bummer that a curious kid won't see SICP on the computing shelf, rather than five or six books on ColdFusion and the like.
In my experience it's not usually too hard to find a second-hand bookstore that will take donations. That's what we do during our annual Culling of the Books.
My mother started and ran a book donation charity. A lot of what we received as donations just ended up going to recycling --outdated encyclopedias, romance novels, and so on. The work needed to sort out people's low quality donations actually ended up dominating the costs of running it, moreso than manning a "free books" table at a local grocery store. She tried just letting people sort through stuff themselves at first, but most people would decide after a short time searching through the free books that they were all crap and give up, defeating the purpose.
>How do people find the nerve to throw a book away? How?!
What else do you do? I have finite space. For the most part, I donate them to my local library for their annual book sale but I imagine most of them end up in a dumpster somewhere.
As for writing in them or marking pages, some are pieces of art in their physical form, but most are just a tool for communication. I make notes and otherwise mark up books that I'm using as a source of information. They're just a tool.
Even for the books that are pieces of art in their physical form, writing on them is merely transformative art.
I see it as enhancement, added value - and I say it as someone who can't write in books after a decade of it being drilled into my head during childhood!
For what it's worth, the statement of Fermat's Last Theorem was written in a margin of a book.
I was bicycling to work today and passed by a cardboard box on the trail that had some books in it. I circled back around to get a closer look and found...a couple of dog-eared paperbacks with a Danielle Steel novel on top and a VHS tape titled something like "Christian Ministry Programs". It's still there if you want to secure them for posterity.
Lesson: Give your famous books to a library collection before you die, and your ignorant grandnephew (or whomever) throws them in the dumpster to be destroyed by rain.
It's interesting to me how we, as humans, ascribe more value to things based on previous ownership. Why is a watch worth $35000 if President <X> owned it, but only $350 if not? Is it not the same watch?
There's a lot of emotional weight in the article, "The". A watch is an interesting thing from a functional perspective, technical perspective, an artistic perspective, and a broader historical perspective. But it's an implicit consignment to a relative definition. A watch is interesting amongst watches, perhaps. Comparable between watches. Valued according to the value of other watches.
However, when you can promote that A to a The, now the thing stands as an absolute in the course of history. The watch that Buzz Aldrin wore on the moon. The pen that signed the surrender of Japan. The Cullinan I Diamond that was cut with nine sibilings from the greatest raw stone ever discovered, and set in to St. Edward's Crown. The nature of the item itself becomes second to the story and the lineage associated with it, and its value ceases to be a function of what the thing does does, and becomes one of what it has done. Omega watches are interesting and technically impressive. But if a Seiko had gone to the moon on Buzz Aldrin's wrist, it would be worth just as much.
On the off chance you're interested in that particular pen, there were actually several of them. I collect fountain pens as a hobby, and ones used to sign historical documents are of particular interest to me.
The founding fathers have a mythical status in the US. Many observers liken it to religious worship (google "civic religion") with the founders akin to the original disciples of the faith. America's early puritan, Protestant, roots also give importance to books. The act of reading books and then writing about them is almost a form of prayer (see the Latin v. English bibles debate). So a book owned by a founding father is precious. A book modified and written upon by a founding father is a sacred text.
In addition, the american legal tradition gives great importance to the concept of original intent, understanding the mind of a document's author. Important documents such as the US constitution, and therefore many modern day legal debates, are understood through the lens of historical context. Knowing the books read by those who wrote such documents gives one argumentative power in the modern context. So these sacred books are a source of modern day power, adding to their perceived value.
I want to know why he moved the first pages to the middle. Is that some masonic thing?
It's not the item you're buying in that case, but the emotional connection to the previous owner.
I had an opportunity to buy a Parker 51 (fountain pen) once owned by Oskar Schindler a while back. I passed on it because it was part of a larger lot at auction that I didn't want, which went for more than I was willing to pay for the pen alone.
I've been looking for years for a pen that I've seen in several photographs of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, but I've yet to come across it (or any of his personal effects). I'd pay a great deal more for it than I would for an identical pen without that provenance. I mention it here because who knows? Someone might know where it is. His family moved to SoCal after the WW2, so it's within the realm of possibility.
Additional meaning and connection are emotionally valuable (especially when rare or irreproducible).
I assume you’d prefer to have Newton’s Principia, Turing’s papers, or your grandfather’s watch vs. a reproduction, even if the practical value of the information is the same.
If any of you managed to get near DC I recommend checking out his library at the LoC: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/thomas-jeffersons-library/. Despite it's age it's very fascinating. You can learn a lot about a man by his books.
Also interesting in that part of the country for lovers of the printed word is Book Thing of Baltimore. It may be helpful for those trying to find a place other than the trash for their own old books, too.
Then again, if you're Borges, you might say that all thoughts that have been thought will be thought again, therefore all books that have been written, will be written again.
That wouldn't be too surprising. HN mods often change links to point to more original sources (sometimes to the detriment I think. eg when moving from a well done summary with commentary to the dense original report)
It may be controversial to say this as an American, but I believe Thomas Jefferson is easily the greatest candidate for founding father that deserves to be forgotten.
- Jefferson sired six children with Sally Hemmings, a slave on his Monticello estate.
- Jeffersions children were put to work in the fields, and never freed for decades.
- Jefferson himself whipped his own children.
- Jefferson intentionally avoided a strong opinion on emancipation and maintained a negative opinion on it frequently. He was accustomed to the opulence of Monticello and without slaves to run it, Jefferson knew his status in the merchant class would be diminished.
- Jefferson died in roughly two million dollars of modern debt. Most attributable to his lavish livestyle.
Thomas Jefferson was a complicated person, like many people throughout history, but that doesn't mean we should forget about him. There is no need to scrub history for people we don't like or disagree with. Instead, we should shine a light on all of his negative aspects, while also celebrating things that he got right during his lifetime.
Agreed. If we start erasing all the flawed people from history, we won't be left with much. Rather the question should be, what you can learn from his good and his bad qualities?
- Historical figures are rarely fully known quantities, and are often more sketch than photograph. They are a gestalt of poorly recorded memory.
- Historical figures are people and are capable of both horrible acts of cruelty and cowardice, just as much as they are simultaneously capable of exalted acts of kindness and insight.
- Historical figures are not gods nor are they devils, they are, foremost, human; they, if they existed, were as complex as you or I.
- It follows then that notable historical figures are just as flawed as the rest of us in every respect.
- Notable historical figures worthy to be held to account for their failings as well as their successes.
- In general, those with power have obtained it by taking it from others. Rarely, there are exceptions.
- The stories of life are always abridged; minor characters are removed. Those silent partners are often where the balance of the equation of power lies. Watch for the shadows of the forgotten.
- In evaluating the merit of an achievement, the means by which the ends are achieved often better reflect the toll the end exacts.
- In evaluating the merit of morals and means against ends, one must understand the measures of the time and place in which the price was paid. Often, the price is still being paid; the interest on debt must be considered.
- In determining if an action is worthy of praise now and worth repeating in the future, the measures of the time and place the action was committed must be weighed against the measures of the present.
- Foremost, tread cautiously - you tread a path which no longer exists; indeed, the path may never have existed.
None of that rebuts how he lived his personal life. He decided that emancipation was not as important as keeping humans as slaves for labor and pleasure.
Like the old saying goes, we should forget all bad things in history because that way we'll never repeat them again...!
Even beyond the absurdity of such notions, your statements paint a misleading picture. Jefferson, from the earliest days of the United States, worked to eliminate slavery. His initial draft of the declaration of independence overtly condemned slavery, though that was removed by the continental congress. Or see "Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves" [1] which was lobbied for by Jefferson for decades and passed immediately when he became president, the first opportunity it was legally possible.
On the abolition of slavery itself Jefferson took a different approach. Slavery was awful, yet it is not difficult to foresee what would happen if all slaves were immediately emancipated. It would lead to violence from both slaves and former owners, and also would likely leave the slaves themselves in an extremely difficult situation. Slaves would have had minimal to no skills, no education, no connections, and then set free in a country where success is driven by merit somehow expected to just go and make a life for themselves.
Instead of abrupt and complete abolition Jefferson proposed phasing out slavery. All slaves born after a certain date would be 'purchased' from their owners for a nominal fee by the government. The government then would handle their education, training, and then send them abroad to work as skilled independent freemen. The idea was to have a peaceful transition and give the former slaves the best opportunity of starting and creating a legacy of success for themselves. And, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps Jefferson was right. In the process of attempting to abruptly end slavery we ended up fighting a frightfully costly war with divides that remain to this day. And to this very day the descendents of slaves are still disproportionately struggling to find success in this nation.
It said that you do not look at other cultures with your own set of lens. I guess it should also be said that you do not look at other time periods with your set of lens.
I am perfectly comfortable remembering and even admiring Thomas Jefferson as a great but flawed person, just like countless people from history. I don't think the things you listed are out of the ordinary for his day. I think it's a little bit Puritanical to erase an entire generation of people because they don't hold up to an updated code of morals. I also think to be Puritanical is to be hypocritical - who knows what you are doing today that people will damn you for in the future. It's almost certainly not what you think.
> I also think to be Puritanical is to be hypocritical - who knows what you are doing today that people will damn you for in the future. It's almost certainly not what you think.
Thomas Jefferson certainly knew that slavery was unethical and contradictory to the values he was setting forth. He just did not have the will to act due to social pressure, greed, delusion, etc.
Why do we bother celebrating any of them? Mortals are mortal, they deserve to be evaluated based on what they do. I'm not sure what purpose, other than propagandistic, is served by looking at them through rose tinted glasses.
In any case, it's not entirely clear that other than the (wonderful) Bill of Rights, the American Revolution was anything other than the elites over here wanting more control. 3/5 compromise, male property owning voters, indirect election of senators, it really sounds like the new aristocracy, with an Enlightenment tinged bent, was taking control. After all, the UK was being run mainly by Parliament, not by the King.
Only popular struggle has made the US more democratic, direct election of senators, freeing the slaves, universal suffrage, but we see even that is being rolled back in the modern era with voter suppression, dark money, and the dark legacy of US foreign policy.
Important to remember that in 200 years, people will look back at things you and I routinely do (and think nothing of) in horror and disgust. Culture changes and applying today’s lens to yesterday is problematic.
It also goes the other way as well. The Mideast was at one time the center of learning and enlightenment in this world. But they headed in a direction of more and more extreme interpretations of their religion to the point where today you could literally face state mandated execution in many nations simply for discussing ideas and philosophical notions openly discussed and considered 1000 years ago in the region.
Time may only move forward, but people and societies can, and do, go in both directions.
The positive way to think about this is that it appears humanity's moral universe is expanding. I could name a long list of things that we do all day that we are going to be judged extremely harshly for, but it would derail the conversation.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. That's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do this; we have to, because it destroys the intellectual curiosity that the site exists for. We've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
It is worth it to consider that societal norms and attitudes change over time.
In a hundred years time, do you think today's heros will be stripped of their accomplishments because they drove cars while the planet could have been saved, or they ate animals while they could have eaten plant-foods?
While I strongly disagree with you, your comment is fading and I upvoted it.
I lived a couple of miles from Monticello for about five years, and have read pretty much everything I could get my hands on about Jefferson. My opinion is that he's absolutely a man worthy of respect, remembrance, and study.
He was not perfect; no one is. He was in many ways a man of his times, and you have to consider those times when considering his views.
For instance, on the topic of slavery: Yes, he fathered children with Sally Hemings. Yes, those children were enslaved from birth and considered chattel. Yes, he maintained a public position of ambiguity on the topic of emancipation and a negative private opinion of the same.
Some context around those facts:
Sally Hemings was almost certainly Martha Jefferson's half-sister, and was of 3/4ths European ancestry. Her children were 7/8ths European, and all but one ultimately chose to move and pass as free whites.
While Jefferson's relationship with Sally was certainly a scandal at the time and abhorrent to us today, it was not uncommon in his era. It did not begin until several years after his wife's death, when he took Sally with him to France - where slavery was illegal - where they conceived the first of their five probable children. According to Sally's daughter, Madison Hemings, Jefferson promised to free their children when they came of age.
Again, it was a bit more complicated than that in practice, because it was illegal for a black person to live in Virginia more than one year after being freed. Sally was "given her time" upon Jefferson's death, which effectively meant that she was able to live as a free person and was protected from being captured and re-enslaved. One of their children "escaped" when she was about to come of age - Jefferson gave her $50, sent her to Philadelphia, and never pursued her. Again, this protected her somewhat from being captured and re-enslaved, as Jefferson continued to own her under the law. The others were freed at the end of his life.
Jefferson likely saw his children's "apprenticeships" as a means of caring for them and providing for their futures without recognizing them as his own.
As for his stance on emancipation, Jefferson believed that slavery was immoral, but that immediate manumission was impractical and would lead to serious social and political consequences, both for those who would have been freed and for the nation itself. His solution to this was to propose a "gradual emancipation" where enslaved people born after a certain date would be free and sent to an African colony. James Monroe, who was a close friend of Jefferson's throughout his life and lived nearby, served as President of the American Colonization Society, which in turn established Liberia. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, is named for James Monroe due to his role in its establishment.
So, in summary - Jefferson's views, while abhorrent to modern sensibilities, were actually quite progressive given the society in which he lived. He seems to have done his best to protect his "shadow family" with Hemings, and to set them up for success in the future.
> slavery was immoral, but that immediate manumission was impractical and would lead to serious social and political consequences, both for those who would have been freed and for the nation itself.
Indeed, we saw the effects of that during the Civil War. Perhaps Jefferson had more of a sense of the rising conflict than folks tend to give him credit for.
> Indeed, we saw the effects of that during the Civil War.
No, because to the extent that immediate manumission happened during the Civil War, it's hard to separate the effects from those of the war and the occupation of rebel states by the Union itself; manumission as a policy (the Emancipation Proclamation) was adopted as a result of the war, not a factor contributing to it.
A neighbor died, and a relative came by and rapidly dumpstered their apartment. Including a stack of family photo albums.
Now, I'd a childhood experience of family sorting things into two boxes: "toys to donate to the school sale", and "childhood photos and keepsakes". Think "all your eggs in one basket". The wrong box was then dropped off at the school. A few hours later, it had been categorized as trash, thrown out, and was unrecoverably lost.
So I salvaged some of the albums in the dumpster. And eventually got in touch with the family to ask, "are your sure?". They were. But before I got around to throwing them out again, I found the document inside a folded photo card thing. And wondered if there had been more in the dumpster, among that which I didn't salvage.
And if I died today, it would likely end up back in a dumpster. Need to find it a better home.
[1] http://www.vendian.org/1740/