We all love a good library picture. And I am guessing I am not the only one who likes scanning pictures of bookshelves in magazines to see if there is anything interesting. Usually one can't see many of the spines clearly but yet we no doubt see a few that we recognize by color/size/design even without being able to read the titles.
And then along comes this picture. I tore it out of a magazine quite a while ago so I don't remember where it came from. You would think that with so many books visible I would have fun combing the stacks as it were. But it doesn't take long to realize this is not a library worth browsing. At least not to me. In the first place the picture is staged, and poorly staged at that. Those piles do not look the least bit organic. In the second place, and this is the important part, there are so few books shown that I would even consider reading, that there might as well not be any books in the picture.
I can see a few that would keep me from getting entirely bored. The Sherlock Holmes boxed set in the foreground and the Jon Stewart book on the topo shelf. In a pinch I might pick up the two Harry Potters in the collection. I would probably scan the Suze Ourman book because I love reading about saving money, but I sure wouldn't pick up the Wally Lamb, Bridget Jones or Smilla's Sense of Snow again. None of them warrant a re-read. And while Empire Falls is a good book, I was a little bored by it and didn't finish it. So after that, what are you left with? Tons of Patterson, Steele, Brown, Baldacci and Grisham.
Has this ever happened to you: you see a full boookcase and think "oh fun". But as soon as you scratch the surface you realize it is all crap?
|If you want a closer look at the boring books|
click the picture to make it larger.