Comment by mjd
14 hours ago
But you nobody can read 70k books, so what was the point? He had a library nobody knew about, full of books he hadn't read.
That's not a library, it's an imitation of a library built by someone who doesn't understand what a library is for.
Not every book in a library is meant to be read like a novel. Some books need only be referenced, briefly and periodically.
The article doesn't say much about what was in the library, but it does mention that it contained 10,000 thriller novels.
There’s an interesting term from the book the Black Swan, an antilibrary, which gains value from books that haven’t been read, but are at hand. Essentially resources for new ideas.
“The writer Umberto Eco belongs to that small class of scholars who are encyclopedic, insightful, and nondull. He is the owner of a large personal library (containing thirty thousand books), and separates visitors into two categories: those who react with “Wow! Signore, professore dottore Eco, what a library you have ! How many of these books have you read?” and the others - a very small minority - who get the point that a private library is not an ego-boosting appendage but a research tool. Read books are far less valuable than unread ones. The library should contain as much of what you don’t know as your financial means, mortgage rates and the currently tight real-estate market allows you to put there. You will accumulate more knowledge and more books as you grow older, and the growing number of unread books on the shelves will look at you menancingly. Indeed, the more you know, the larger the rows of unread books. Let us call this collection of unread books an antilibrary.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
That's roughly on par with saying nobody needs the internet or a library at all.
Back the 1920s having a personal library was fairly common for people with more than two dimes, they had this thing called an 'Ex Libris' which roughly translates as 'from the books of'. This was a little piece of paper, often very nicely designed that you glued to the first page of a book and then you could borrow it freely and sooner or later it would find its way back to you.
This was the rough equivalent of wikipedia, only a lot slower and less convenient. Then encyclopedias (which existed for a long time) became larger and larger, I had one from the 18th century that got lost in a move but it was a work of art, so much effort had gone into making that. The encyclopedias of the newer ages were however far larger and covered more subjects. Ever year a new batch of pages or the occasional reprint was the norm. And then personal libraries went the way of the dodo. Every time one of my family members dies there is always the same question: what will happen to all the books. These people - and me too - spent a fortune on their books, untold tens of thousands over a lifetime. They were well read, not 'browsing' information but actually reading - and occasionally writing.
That library in the article is exceptional in one way: that it does not look like it was shared. But I can totally sympathize: some people are focused on the number of digits on their bank account, others derive their sense of wealth and accomplishment from their bookshelves. I don't own any books I have not read, but I do understand people buying books that they intend to read at some point but never get around to.
As these things go, I'd be happy have a million more book hoarders, even if they don't read them all, so they can be passed on to the next generation of booklovers, assuming they can still be found.
> As these things go, I'd be happy have a million more book hoarders, even if they don't read them all, so they can be passed on to the next generation of booklovers,
Exactly my sentiment!
Everything today has been tied down to making money or gaining name/fame. There is no concept of studying "knowledge for knowledge's sake". And yet everybody knows that it is precisely only the latter mindset which has enabled Humans to build all their grand civilizations and technologies.
Hoarding/archiving/collecting is quite fun. I don't think it's a stretch to say he likely read more then the average person, and from his own collection too!
[I had to do the calculation: 70K/365 ~= 192 years, i.e. 2.5 or 3 books per day assuming a standard lifetime. Yep, it's a lot of books.]
"It is foolish to think that you have to read all the books you buy, as it is foolish to criticize those who buy more books than they will ever be able to read. It would be like saying that you should use all the cutlery or glasses or screwdrivers or drill bits you bought before buying new ones.
"There are things in life that we need to always have plenty of supplies, even if we will only use a small portion.
"If, for example, we consider books as medicine, we understand that it is good to have many at home rather than a few: when you want to feel better, then you go to the 'medicine closet' and choose a book. Not a random one, but the right book for that moment. That's why you should always have a nutrition choice!
"Those who buy only one book, read only that one and then get rid of it. They simply apply the consumer mentality to books, that is, they consider them a consumer product, a good. Those who love books know that a book is anything but a commodity."
-- Umberto Eco
For some great quotes; see Umberto Eco on Writing, Reading, Books, and More - https://bigother.com/2026/01/05/umberto-eco-on-writing-readi...
This is an intriguing essay by Eco as part of a book review; On Unread Books - https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/02/on-unread-boo...