For some background: here is the old office (downstairs). And here is the new(ish) office, two years ago. As you can see, things are getting out of control. Fortunately, my five-year-old son has been working on solutions, even going so far as to create some models of how the books might be stacked more effectively:
Excellent!
Have you considered a digital reader? I just bought my wife a Nook for her birthday, and I'm using it to clear off some shelf space. Clearly not everything can be had in e-reader format, but there's quite a lot of stuff out there that can be had.
Posted by: David K. Monroe | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 05:12 AM
You're gonna need a bigger bookcase.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 05:25 AM
Gosh am I glad I'm not the only person who has book shelves that look like this :-) Isn't it a wonderful problem to have??
Posted by: Ron | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 06:26 AM
Phew, now I can show my wife that even the pro's have messy shelves.
Posted by: Richard | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 09:24 AM
You could make some more space by laying the books on the long sides so that the spines face up. You won't be able to read the spines that way, but you could fit more books. If you're careful about your organization, you may not have to read every single spine.
The distinguished Ed Peters has the correct final solution.
Posted by: Gregory Williams | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 09:36 AM
Self-delusion can be the source of many unintended consequences. On a positive note, a course or study material in spacial relationships should prove to be very useful.
Posted by: Brian J. Schuettler | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 01:26 PM
David: I'll eventually get there. I'm loath to do it, but it's inevitable, especially considering my line of work.
Ed: Yes, I certainly do. But I can only go up; the width is maxed out.
Ron: It's not a bad problem, that's for certain!
Richard: The prose pros proscribe prose that overflows.
Gregory: Good points, although not seeing the spines would probably bug me.
Brian: You and my wife think alike!
Partial solution is that some of the books that I think I need but I really don't need on a regular basis, are going into boxes and joining the other 15-18 boxes of books in the garage.
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 01:36 PM
You look as if you could use some more books, you serial book collecter ;-)
Posted by: Stephen Sparrow | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 01:36 PM
Carl,
Next time you visit a newsstand, take a look at the August 2010 issue of Vogue magazine, with Gweneth Paltrow on the cover. You will find that you and Gweneth have in common a non-recommended book shelving technique.
I think you should have all of your books in a Booxter database:
http://www.deepprose.com/
Posted by: Charles E Flynn | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 03:52 PM
Last week, two of my bookshelves collapsed under the weight of new books. I will be following the advice of the always wise Dr. Peters.
Posted by: Deacon Harold | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 05:17 PM
If your hobby is not following industrial design, you may not have encountered the 606 Universal Shelving System, designed in 1960 by Dieter Rams, and still being refined by him:
http://www.vitsoe.com
Posted by: Charles E Flynn | Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 09:23 PM
Do not miss this photo:
http://www.vogue.com/feature/2010_August_Gwyneth_Paltrow/
Posted by: Charles E Flynn | Friday, July 23, 2010 at 07:17 AM
Try turning some of those shelves upside down when reorganizing them. It will help to straighten them out once again. I speak from experience. ;-)
Posted by: Kathy | Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:13 AM
I think you need another room Carl... That's the solution.
Posted by: Skyhawk | Monday, July 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Carl, I second Skyhawk; besides, you may need to check those boxes in the garage...which is always a pain. I've been missing my large Oxford Latin dictionary for weeks and the idea of doing the work of a bloodhound through boxes is no fun.
Posted by: Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto | Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:07 PM