The author wants to weed out an old sewing book from the '60s. Apparently, people don't check it out that much, but is that really a good reason for getting rid of it? Also, the author's willingness to weed out the book seems very influenced by the book's dated aesthetics:<p>"Note the “groovy” cover."<p>"I want to weed this one based on the home decorating in the last picture below."<p>Here's how amazon reviewers felt about the book:<p>"Just what I needed to use my vintage sewing machine feet more effectively which was original intent when I bought the book but wow'd by the great info for sewing and illustrations. Great resource book to have whether beginner or advanced"<p>"This book is great if you have any older vintage Singer machines."<p>"It's the complete guide. Good for beginners to experienced. 72 yrs old male. father was upholster, mother drapery and seimstress, Good for helping me out for what I forgot"<p>- <a href="https://awfullibrarybooks.net/sewing-fundamentals/" rel="nofollow">https://awfullibrarybooks.net/sewing-fundamentals/</a>
- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Singer-Sewing-Book-Complete-Guide/dp/B000S6X3YQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Singer-Sewing-Book-Complete-Guide/dp/...</a><p>Also, the groovy cover is awesome.
I find it fascinating that there is so much hand-wringing in the library world about challenges to books that a small part of the public finds offensive. Claims of obscenity, etc. that libraries then celebrate during Banned Books Week. Yet, this site shows just how willing librarians are to throw out books they personally find offensive. They are in charge of the collections, I get it, and it's not that big of a deal, but it's an interesting tension. Part of me wishes librarians would be just a bit more neutral in proclaiming what is definitively offensive or not.<p>For example, this is from the entry for the 1957 book "Rocket Power and Space Flight".<p>"The author talks to the “fellows” who wrote him letters and uses the pronoun “he” and “him” throughout the book. Reason #1 to weed it."<p>Sure, this is an old book and would probably get weeded anyway. But why make such a big deal about community members objecting to material when you yourself object to so much material?
I don't care for the name or the attitude. It's surprising to me that librarians would be so snarky about books. Many of these books indeed don't belong in small community library collections because they are outdated and no longer useful to most patrons (they would probably be of interest to historians or other academics). That doesn't make them 'awful.'
> Awful Library Books<p>Not a fan of the over-opinionated framing. It seems like mainly a list of things that are "dated" (which I'd personally find pretty interesting, for various reasons) and/or politically incorrect from the author's orientation.
I've visited this site in the past and felt like the title sort of over-promises.<p>I was expecting some truly awful stuff with hilarious commentary in the vein of the Gallery of Regrettable Food, but most of this is just 'This book is old and has outdated information and therefore is awful in terms of suitability for a public library collection'.<p>Well, except for the 'Build your own bazooka at home' one, I guess.
I think a lot of commenters are missing the point of this site. It's an opinionated collection of books they think should be weeded. They're specifically talking about libraries trying to provide information to the general public. They explain (emphasis mine):<p>> Weeding is an essential component of library collection management. Most libraries simply do not have unlimited space, and we must continually make room for new materials. Weeding is necessary to remain relevant to our users and true to our missions. Remember – *unless your library exists to archive and preserve materials for the ages*, we are not in the business of collecting physical things. We collect information and provide access to information. We love books as much as anyone else, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made. How many times have you said, “But I just bought that!” and then realized it was ten years ago?
These are my favorite books. I love dated books because it's great way to look into the past. The internet is awful for that purpose. Some day people will wonder what the 2010s were like, and nobody will know.
What kind of library people don’t know and adhere to the five laws of library science? Especially, in this case, the third law:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science#Third_Law:_Every_book_its_reader" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science#T...</a><p>These people are not librarians. They are censors.
Related-ish thread (on the mass destruction of low-quality library books during the microfiche era):<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27325095" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27325095</a> (<i>"Book Review: Double Fold"</i>)
I understand that libraries have to prioritize what uses space in their circulating collections, but does "old book" really equal "awful book"? A few are in the awkward space between being current enough to be useful today and old enough to have historical interest, but many of them are just a little outdated in appearance and tone, which in no way means they can't be a valuable part of a library collection.
I <i>love</i> resources like this. I think in our present world where we are constantly bombarded with so much "content," things like this make you stop and think and "triangulate" a bit. Like, this is terrible and someone sacrificed dead trees to make it; think about how much of what you may be looking at might be this level of crap, or worse.
OK, so I'm supposed to believe that some book about pregnancy is "bad" simply because of the date, and the fact that a particular library's copy of it is in great condition?<p>Not a single citation from the content?<p>If this were a tenth grade essay, I would give it a D.<p>@cjlm Please don't submit garbage to HackerNews.