Books
-
If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between "less" and "fewer." Getting things down to a countable number achieves "fewer"-ness.
Also, looking at walls of books sparks joy.
+1
Less junk, fewer things. Less anxiety, fewer panic attacks.
... And I already reached semantic satiation with "fewer."
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
You'll have to pry my Pratchett collection from my cold, dead hands.
-
This shit seems weirdly disposal/consumerism focused.
Fuck all of this.
Well she is big on giveaways, as long as you’re not “cleaning“ while in fact dumping tons of junk on family members who are equally convinced “oh yeah maybe someday I’ll totally wear this…“
-
This shit seems weirdly disposal/consumerism focused.
Fuck all of this.
I'm not sure why you're conflating "don't hoard things you don't need" with consumerism.
There's certainly ways to do that irresponsibly, but it's not part of the philosophy.
-
Anyone else have a redneck family that started dropping off endless truckloads of random used books from various flea markets at your home the very moment they found out that you like to read?
No but that sounds fucked up. A book collection should be a carefully curated catalog full of things that you personally love or find great use for, not some sad eclectic mix that looks like a hoarder's pile.
-
No but that sounds fucked up. A book collection should be a carefully curated catalog full of things that you personally love or find great use for, not some sad eclectic mix that looks like a hoarder's pile.
Unless you have a giant library to fill
-
That he remembers writing between all the coke he did
-
This post did not contain any content.
When we moved in, the neighbors daughter was curious about the "new ones", and asked if she could help.
I told her that I would be putting the books on the shelves the next day, and she promised to come over.
I don't know what she expected (when we visited them, I never saw a book in their place), but she was shocked when she saw a large pile of boxes. I had just finished installing the first wall of shelves, and told her that we would have to sort the boxes out, only about 10k books were for the living room, the other would go up into the studio...
-
+1
Less junk, fewer things. Less anxiety, fewer panic attacks.
... And I already reached semantic satiation with "fewer."
Less shit, fewer sewers.
-
When we moved in, the neighbors daughter was curious about the "new ones", and asked if she could help.
I told her that I would be putting the books on the shelves the next day, and she promised to come over.
I don't know what she expected (when we visited them, I never saw a book in their place), but she was shocked when she saw a large pile of boxes. I had just finished installing the first wall of shelves, and told her that we would have to sort the boxes out, only about 10k books were for the living room, the other would go up into the studio...
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There's having 30 books, and 10.000 books. There's probably a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. No one needs 10.000 books.
-
That he remembers writing between all the coke he did
I’ve seen interviews with him where he mentioned: ‘I was reading a synopsis of a story that sounded really interesting’ only to discover that it was about a book that he had written. And apparently he has no memory of writing Cujo.
There’s ‘doing coke’ and ‘doing coke so much I forgot I wrote a fucking best selling novel’.
-
There's having 30 books, and 10.000 books. There's probably a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. No one needs 10.000 books.
No one need 10.000 books
Not with that attitude.
-
No one need 10.000 books
Not with that attitude.
-
You'll have to pry my Pratchett collection from my cold, dead hands.
I have never read all of his books because at some point I will have read his last book.
-
I have never read all of his books because at some point I will have read his last book.
Sadly the quality was dipping for the last few. I didn't finish Unseen Academicals.
-
If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between "less" and "fewer." Getting things down to a countable number achieves "fewer"-ness.
Also, looking at walls of books sparks joy.
Sorry, less word more good
-
Sorry, less word more good
Less word more fewer!
-
Less word more fewer!
Less book more feuer!
-
If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between "less" and "fewer." Getting things down to a countable number achieves "fewer"-ness.
Also, looking at walls of books sparks joy.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between “less” and “fewer.” Getting things down to a countable number achieves “fewer”-ness.
Bullshit dogmatic rule by pedants who make up rules & pass them down like schmucks instead of observing & studying the actual, standard language.
True: fewer is only for countables.
However, less is fine.
It has been used with countables for about as long as written English has existed as documented by linguists & English usage references:
::: spoiler quoted passageThe primary point is that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false "rules" that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed.
But not the usage advice at MWCDEU. This is the start of its entry on less/fewer:
Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault—it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer: fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.
As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:
This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper. —Baker 1770
Baker's remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly—"I should think," "appears to me"—his own taste and preference. [...]
How Baker's opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know. But we do know that many people believe it is such. Simon 1980, for instance, calls the "less than 50,000 words" he found in a book about Joseph Conrad a "whopping" error.
The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great—he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin—more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language. After about 900 years Robert Baker opined that fewer might be more elegant and proper. Almost every usage writer since Baker has followed Baker's lead, and generations of English teachers have swelled the chorus. The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe less used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated.
:::Less is more general than fewer, and the references identify common constructions where less is preferred with countables.
-
I'm not sure why you're conflating "don't hoard things you don't need" with consumerism.
There's certainly ways to do that irresponsibly, but it's not part of the philosophy.
Im sure the other extreme isn't great
But then, hoarding is usually a reaction to poverty.
