Some people hate books. They don't ever read unless they are literally forced to sit in a room with nothing but a book for hours on end. Everyone knows those people who have gotten away with not doing the required reading for a class. Some brag about how they didn't even look up a synopsis and just fake their way through all the related assignments.

It's these types of people who drive me insane.

I love reading to a fault. I still find myself indulging in hours upon hours or reading when I should really be getting caught up on my heavy workload. When I say I love reading, I mean reading anything. One time I was standing in line at my school's dining hall, reading a sign about food waste and what my school has done to cut back on it.

A friend of mine was coming my way. I did not see him until he was about two feet away from me. I wasn't even interested in the sign, but it had words, so I felt compelled to read it.

That's how much I love reading.

Onto my main point, I do not like bibliophiles.

Before all of you who love books come hunting me down with pitchforks and torches, hear me out. I think that the term is too broad to fully capture what it is that a person loves. When you break it down to the Latin, "biblio" means books and "phile" means love.

So it would appear that the two together would mean someone who loves books. That makes sense.

There is a problem though. Some people say they love books, but mean that they love the physical book itself, not the stories. I'm not even getting into the digital versus print book conversation here. I don't care what your preference is, as long as you aren't addicted to just collecting books because you think they will look pretty in your house.

Some people buy books just to look well-read, without ever cracking the spines. This is infuriating to me.

Why buy books you have no intention of ever reading?

Then there are the people who love books for the aesthetic, not the content. These are the people who give bibliophiles a bad name.

For those of you who have read "The Great Gatsby," recall the scene where Nick finds himself in Gatsby's library where a strange man who is fawning over Gatsby's library of real books. The man was surprised that Gatsby didn't just put up a façade to make it look like he had a grand collection of books but actually paid for real books filled with prints and letters. I think I like this strange, unnamed character. He gets it. Books shouldn't just be for decoration (though I'm almost certain Gatsby never had the time to open up any of his books).

Don't get me wrong, I love a beautiful hardcover book just as much as the next guy, but you don't see me organizing my bookshelf by color or height. Anybody who truly loves books knows that sometimes that old, coffee-stained, tear-soaked copy of your favorite book that you got at the used bookstore is so much more important than a crisp copy.

You would never throw out your battered up copy for a newer edition unless the book is so battle-scarred that it is falling apart. I'm not saying you shouldn't still appreciate a beautiful copy of a book. I just don't want to hear you in Barnes and Noble asking yourself if this book is the same height or thickness as your other books or if it will look nice with your collection.

I myself own a gorgeous copy of "Byron's Poetical Works" that is over 150 years old with a gilded spine and water marbled covers and page edges. I love that book with a burning passion. Of course, I think it's pretty, but the point isn't that I bought it to spice up my bookshelf, but as a relic of a book that I will enjoy reading. When I walked out of the used and rare bookstore, my heart was pounding to the point that my friends made me drink a bottle of water and go take a nap for a little bit.

That kind of excitement is acceptable for a bibliophile, but it did not even cross my mind to think if it would match my décor or if I wanted it on display.