Comment by jacquesm

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.