Editing 2791: Bookshelf Sorting
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
+ | {{incomplete|Created by a BOOKSHELF SORTED THE NORMAL WAY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | ||
+ | |||
Some people like to sort their bookshelves by the visible color of the book's spine, for example by hue to create a rainbow effect. This is pleasing to the eye, but may be unhelpful when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxmPHLU9oA trying to find a specific book]. Literary enthusiasts (AKA "Book People") frequently dislike this system, because it emphasizes appearance at the expense of making books easy to find. On a philosophical level, treating books as decorations, rather than reading material, upsets many purists. "Book people" are more likely to have a practical system for arranging their books, either by category, genre, title, author name, or some combination of those. For a large library, a more rigorous organizational scheme such as the {{w|Dewey Decimal Classification}} might be used. | Some people like to sort their bookshelves by the visible color of the book's spine, for example by hue to create a rainbow effect. This is pleasing to the eye, but may be unhelpful when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxmPHLU9oA trying to find a specific book]. Literary enthusiasts (AKA "Book People") frequently dislike this system, because it emphasizes appearance at the expense of making books easy to find. On a philosophical level, treating books as decorations, rather than reading material, upsets many purists. "Book people" are more likely to have a practical system for arranging their books, either by category, genre, title, author name, or some combination of those. For a large library, a more rigorous organizational scheme such as the {{w|Dewey Decimal Classification}} might be used. | ||
− | Unfortunately, [[Randall]] has found a ''much'' worse method of book organization - instead of sorting the books as discrete units, he has sorted their individual ''pages'' by number. This would require physically separating each book into its individual pages, and then organizing them into groups by page number. This effectively destroys every book, and requires anyone trying to read them to | + | Unfortunately, [[Randall]] has found a ''much'' worse method of book organization - instead of sorting the books as discrete units, he has sorted their individual ''pages'' by number. This would require physically separating each book into its individual pages, and then organizing them into groups by page number. This effectively destroys every book, and requires anyone trying to read them to find each individual page (among many pages of the same number), and then replacing it in the correct space after reading. Adding a new book would require individually placing potentially hundreds of pages. Where pages are not numbered, finding their place would be nearly impossible. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | Randall's system appears to work by absolute physical page count, including the front and rear covers as 'pages'. All the front covers are on the left side, then the first internal leaf of each book (counted as the second page), then the second internal leaf, etc. This produces repeating patterns of taller and shorter loose-leaf pages, echoing the proportions of each cover, having gathered together a page of the same position in each different book. The back covers are mixed in to whatever group falls after the last internal leaf from the same book, and so are intermixed with pages from longer books. At the end, there are only the last pages of the longest book left, now all uniform in size, and its rear cover. | |
The caption claims that "book people" get way angrier at this system, likely because it involves physically destroying books, rendering them almost unreadable. People with a strong affinity for books are often upset at volumes being treated with such disrespect. | The caption claims that "book people" get way angrier at this system, likely because it involves physically destroying books, rendering them almost unreadable. People with a strong affinity for books are often upset at volumes being treated with such disrespect. | ||
− | In the title text Randall claims | + | In the title text Randall claims sorts his bookshelf alphabetically, but by the first '''sentence'''. He describes this as "the normal way", even though the typical practice is to sort books either by title or author. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | In | + | Sorting by first line was, in fact, a common sorting method before books had titles, known as {{w|Incipit}}. In modern times, however, that method is wildly obsolete, as books are almost always identified by titles, few people memorize the opening lines of their books, and a film titled ''{{w|The Hobbit|In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit}}'' would not receive any funding. However, {{w|papal encyclicals}} are still named after their first words, and thus would be sorted after their first sentence. For example, the encyclical titled ''{{w|Quanta Cura}}'' begins with "''Quanta cura'' ac pastorali vigilantia Romani Pontifices Prædecessores Nostri, exsequentes [...]". |
− | + | In somewhat similar fashion, the 114 chapters of the {{w|Quran}} are roughly sorted by their length. American church hymnals list hymns by relatively meaningless numbers, but then index them by tune name, text title, first line, and meter. | |
− | + | Some books do have very well-known first lines, so sorting by first line could be used to demonstrate a level of literary sophistication on the part of the bookshelf owner, but such could hardly be considered "normal". | |
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== |