What is the best way to approach organizing the books, so I don't have to put them on the shelves more than once?

When I moved, I used the "piles on the floor" approach. I sorted my books into large piles based on the way I tend to think about my books. For me, those categories were: Fiction--all sorts; reference--encyclopedias, dictionaries, almanacs, language guides, travel guides, atlases, etc.; poetry and plays; manga, comic book anthologies, graphic novels; craft books--knitting, weaving, etc.; history; cookbooks; assorted non-fiction; and so on.

I then shelved one category at a time, deciding if there needed to be additional sorting within a category. With the exception of fiction (I shelved by author, and to hell with genre), the comics (volumes in a series are kept together), and history/assorted non-fiction (anything related to science or history thereof got separated out), I didn't worry too much about further refining the sort.

The trick is to organize to the level at which you mentally categorize your books. My concept of "reference" is pretty broad, and I lump poetry and plays together, since I tend to think of them as "not-non-fiction-but-not-prose." My dad, on the other hand, is a theater junkie, and would probably categorize plays by period and author. My mom would probably have seventeen different criteria for categorizing her cookbooks.

Books I know I'll take out frequently (cookbooks, reference, re-readable novels, etc.) are placed where I could get to them most easily without having to hunker down or stand on tip-toe.

Also, since my shelf space is at a premium (and because I know darn well that I'll be acquiring more books), I stacked most books at the backs of the shelves, then propped another book in front of the pile that would give me an idea of what was behind there. That way, I was able to squeeze in more books per shelf-foot, and I was able to display the covers of particularly pretty books. Does that make sense?

There's not really a "g" sound in Lancaster, though (I go to school there! I have valuable regional knowlege!). Local people say LAN-ca-str. Everyone else says lan-CAST-r. If you are an outsider who manages to adopt this useful piece of regional dialect, you will be INVISIBLE!

Likewise -- if from Worcester, MA, pronouce it Wuss-tah.
You know you want to.

Likewise -- if from Worcester, MA, pronouce it Wuss-tah.

how else would you pronounce it?

Wor-chester or Wor-caster is how most out-of-towners pronounce it.

Of course, the Thames River in New London is pronounced with the "th" sound here, much to the chargrin of anyone from London.

Wor-chester or Wor-caster is how most out-of-towners pronounce it.

Philistines! :)

Likewise -- if from Worcester, MA, pronouce it Wuss-tah. You know you want to.

Of course. Like Leicester Square in London is pronounced "Les-ter."

And Staunton, VA is pronounced "STAN-t'n."

Isn't it amazing how much you can tell about a person by little things like that? Simple pronunciation like Les-ter vs. Lei-caster in London, or how to eat a piece of pizza in NYC (folded over), or what a "grinder" is in CT (a sub, hoagie, or hero in other parts of the country).

I love dialects and regional customs. They're so much fun.

As a Wisconsin native, I've been mocked for my pronunciation of my home state. I apparently pronounce it wis-GON-sin, instead of wis-KON-sin. I don't think I'm alone in this, but I don't often pay attention.

Oh, and when I moved out to Seattle, I was corrected on my pronunciation of Oregon. It's OR-e-gun, not OR-e-GON.

Here, we have the Great E/UH Divide.

Do you say "Mis-UR-ee" or "Mis-UR-uh"?

It pretty much tells you what part of the state people are from, and if they are "country" or "city."

Years in the UK left me with the tooth-grindy reaction to mispronounciations of Leicester and Worcester.

More common than those, even, is the mangling of "-shire" at the end of a place name. That, and the mangling of "Edinborough" and "Glasgow". Brrr.