I regret to inform you both that my spouse, charming as he is in other ways, does sort books partially by size and so it is in our household: we have shelves that hold paperback-size, shelves that hold trade-paperback-size, and shelves that hold larger mostly-hardbacks. Though this is clearly to pack in the maximum number of books possible, and within those shelves nonfic is sorted by content and fic is sorted alphabetically by author.
(The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU. I didn't even KNOW the third layer existed for years! I reluctantly go along with it because, well, otherwise we wouldn't have space for the books. Although at this point we could probably get rid of the third layer and not miss it.)
Sorting by pragmatics I understand! I have been forced to make concessions in that direction as well (though I try to avoid as much as possible, by laying tall books on their sides where I can). It's sorting by *appearance* that tells me your books are for display rather than reading, and that's what I took Dantal to mean.
The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU.
What. I would never have forgiven him either! You are right to object.
I have relatively few books (~400-500), because my book collection is a research library consisting mostly of expensive non-fictional reference works that have stood the test of several move-induced cullings, which means there are not nearly as many as I would like. As a result, they are also inclined to be large and heavy hardcovers, though by no means all. Cheaper books for light reading are all on my Kindle (along with a bunch more expensive scholarly ones, of course).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Dantal: Dog Name, Reading, and other Details (1784-86)
(The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU. I didn't even KNOW the third layer existed for years! I reluctantly go along with it because, well, otherwise we wouldn't have space for the books. Although at this point we could probably get rid of the third layer and not miss it.)
Book sorting
The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU.
What. I would never have forgiven him either! You are right to object.
I have relatively few books (~400-500), because my book collection is a research library consisting mostly of expensive non-fictional reference works that have stood the test of several move-induced cullings, which means there are not nearly as many as I would like. As a result, they are also inclined to be large and heavy hardcovers, though by no means all. Cheaper books for light reading are all on my Kindle (along with a bunch more expensive scholarly ones, of course).