Books, maybe. Videos, yes.
Are Yasser Seirawan s' Books worth reading?

I have all of his "Winning Chess..." series. I would rate the books in the series as being anywhere from good to excellent, depending on the title. Of course, any judgment is a matter of the expectations and perspective of the individual reader. My favorites are, in order, "Winning Chess Strategies", "Winning Chess Endings", "Winning Chess Billiancies", Winning Chess Tactics", and "Winning Chess Openings". Each of these are written in a clear, instructive style suitable for the amateur player, and do a better than average job of explaining the concepts being discussed.
Bottom line - I consider his books to be generally worthwhile for the chess amateur to read.
If someone is a beginner, I would definitely recommend Winning Chess Strategies and (in particular) Winning Chess Tactics. His tactics book will clearly explain the basic motifs, patterns and vocabulary, and has lots of tactics puzzles for the reader to work out.

I am still reading some of his books. I can't say anything about their educative values as I haven't finished yet but it's true that I am enjoying his books.

I like Seirawan's commentary. There are times that his prose is a bit confused, but he has good stories to tell and his analysis is usually excellent.
So, in a word, yes.

He's written a good many so obviously there must be a valid reason why they kept on publishing his oeuvre. If you necessarily intend to buy them all at once, then the question is tough: will you have any money left to buy beer?
It's good that someone came along to inject some common sense priorities into the thread. It's important to keep a proper perspective.

What do you think?
I thought his book 'Five Crowns' about the Kasparov/Karpov matches was EXCELLENT!!

I like them too. Duels is great and openings and strategy's too. Can't comment on the others. Got them on sale, so my beerspective is grrrreat!

I like his books, they have helped me improve my chess.
I like his writing style, he writes in a friendly, but not "chummy" or "parenthetical" style that was popularized by the Dummies and Idiot's books, I think. I guess it's because of my science background; I like information presented in a straighforward, dry way, mostly.
Have to love Yaz! Here he is in 1987:
What do you think?