In defence of substance.

Aug 12, 2005 11:33

Since the new/used issue is sparking a bit (!) of debate, I thought I'd toss out a favourite quote of mine for general discussion ( Read more... )

specialty bookstores, co-worker, bibliophile / book recommendations, valuation, antique, second-hand, rare, chain

Leave a comment

Comments 73

orangemike August 12 2005, 20:45:49 UTC
I happen to like books as physical objects: a darned convenient information storage and retrieval system. I also like them as associational items: I'm proud to own a couple of "Chip" Delany's own copies of his works, with his own name in them writ by his own hand.

But I don't make a religion of it.

But I do feel that a bookseller should know about books, as a hatter should know about hats, or a grocer about vegetables. And there is a lot to know about books: more by orders of magnitude than about spices, or hardware, or umbrellas.

Reply

anik August 12 2005, 21:23:47 UTC
But I do feel that a bookseller should know about books, as a hatter should know about hats, or a grocer about vegetables. And there is a lot to know about books: more by orders of magnitude than about spices, or hardware, or umbrellas.

Absolutely agreed! This week I worked my way through 27 separate publisher catalogues for one rep (although, granted, a number of them were more booklets than catalogues). My head feels pretty full, I'll have to jump up and down a bit to get it to settle to make room for the next round.

Reply

orangemike August 12 2005, 21:39:55 UTC
And it's that much worse for the general used-book trade, because we are expected to know at least a little about damn near everything that's been published since at least the early 19th century, if not before. I need to know why there aren't new copies available of Canary in the Cat House, and what incunabula are, and what title Lord Edgeware Dies was published under in the U.S., and who Asterix is, and what hentai manga are, and, and, and...

Reply

anik August 12 2005, 21:46:07 UTC
Yes, and most of the used book stores around here don't have Bowker or TitleWave to reference . . . yikes. I would need a much bigger head.

Reply


starlit__ August 12 2005, 21:00:27 UTC
I agree. most of my books are cheap paperbacks, and I adore marginalia. I like books I can happily fling in my bag or lend to friends. that's not to say I don't value my books: I'd be very upset if I lost my signed Michel Fabers, or my battered Emma Forrest proof. of course, none of my treasured books are valuable in a marketplace, they're valuable for sentimental reasons. I don't think I'll ever be a collector.

Reply

anik August 12 2005, 21:33:10 UTC
Marginalia: Yes! I love it because you get someone else's reactions nearly simultaneously with your own experience of the passage (instead of discussing the finished book later).

Perhaps with the much discussed 'smart paper' and electronic books, someday there will be real-time IRCs going on in the margins of books . . . distracting, but still intriguing.

Reply

northerndyke August 13 2005, 08:27:50 UTC
ah michael faber!!! i have a stash of half a dozen copies of crimson peteal so I can pass them out to friends rather than loan them my own copy! What an amazing book that is - though under the skin left me cold

Reply


dyfferent August 12 2005, 21:09:05 UTC
I agree. I used to be a bit weird and hovery about my books, which was odd because most of them were tatty yellowed things from second-hand stores (I am poor).

Then I started working for a new bookstore. It almost felt like a violation the first time I title-paged a book (it was faulty, misbound very badly, nothing to do about it). I used to try to find homes for things that were never read that were just going to end up in the skip. I know this isn't strictly legal, but I did always feel that books deserve to be read and they should get a chance. I joined bookcrossing for that reason. I still do put a ton of proofs out on the streets ( ... )

Reply

anik August 12 2005, 21:39:42 UTC
That was wonderfully eloquent, and I think the furniture store analogy fits perfectly.

I went through the weird and hovery before working in books, too; now I'm not only more concerned with content than package, but I will even gleefully cut up a book for a craft project*.

(* But only if it's a book that is in wide circulation anyway, or if it's just a really awful book. ;-)

Reply

dyfferent August 12 2005, 23:53:24 UTC
I once gave a Tom Holt novel to my degus to watch them shred it. They had hours of fun, but I paid the price--that light pulp paper drifts with the slightest bit of air movement. I was picking up bits of that book for weeks.

Reply

Oh, and... dyfferent August 13 2005, 00:01:23 UTC
I now read in the bath. It's one of my greatest pleasures, but if I really worried about getting water on the books, I couldn't do it.

Reply


bookfoole August 12 2005, 23:36:32 UTC
"I may use it as an ashtray, a paperweight, a doorstop or even a missile to throw at silly young men who make fatuous remarks. So, think again."If you expect residual value, then you have to treat it like it has value --if you treat it like it's valueless, then it will be valueless (from an economic standpoint). And there's nothing wrong with that --you got your value from it when you read it. Just don't get annoyed with me when you find out that a copy in Fine condition with a Fine dust jacket is now going for $1000 and your copy without a jacket and with dog-eared pages and a coffee ring is barely worth $20 ( ... )

Reply

dyfferent August 12 2005, 23:59:03 UTC
Books that are scanned into an optical medium will also last for centuries. It depends on what you consider is the book: the paper pulp and fabric, the glue? Or is it the words themselves? Fry is obviously saying the latter is what counts with him and he doesn't care as much about the former. He's also implying that book collectors *only* care about the former, which is a bit harsh. I think most people who collect books are interested in a particular type of book for the love of that type, or a particular author, etc. The people who do it as an investment are probably relatively rare.

Reply

bookfoole August 13 2005, 00:29:02 UTC
I'm not unaware of Fry's point. I was just giving my reaction to it.

Re: optical mediums lasting centuries...There are several problems with that ( ... )

Reply

dyfferent August 13 2005, 08:14:17 UTC
I'm not talking about things like manuscript letters or even limited editions. I doubt today's printer is going to get away with dropping his ham sandwich on a finished print run. I'm talking about things like the new Margaret Atwood or Jonathan Coe. Those books don't and won't have value of themselves unless you're talking about thousands of years' time, in which case they'd have to be locked in a vault or something. In that case it's definitely not worth my time not to read that book in the bath, or buying a version I can read on my PDA instead of a dead-tree one. What would I get out of preserving it? I don't even have heirs.

Reply


vkacademy August 13 2005, 05:34:26 UTC
I just want to say I LOVED The Liar. Best of all his books, IMHO.

Books are to be used, shared, given, resold, etc. Some books ARE works of art: old text with hand-tooled leather and illuminated manuscript. But by and large, I treat my books the way a child treats her toys. With love and abuse.

Reply

dragatheimpaler August 13 2005, 12:29:04 UTC
I do not own a "respectable" book collection. As a dealer in fine books, we have to fight our urges as collectors to stay alive. Sometimes, being sneaky devilsh characters that we are, we will price a book higher than we think we should actually get for it just to enjoy it longer. I can't say I've actually done this, but I've certainly seen it happen. I indulge my collectors fantasies in my patrons book collection for whom I am his "rare book assistant" but have none of my own. I think the most valuable book I actually own is only $75 to $100. I will admit to having a small collection on Balkan history (large by most stores standards) that is quite simply worth more to me than I could actually get for it on the market, but I don't own any great stuff prior to WWII because it's so unusual in English, that I can't rightly afford it. At any rate, the collecting urge and the reading urge are two wholly different beasts. Collectors of any ilk are weird birds, driven by the urge to "possess". Otherwise, wouldn't your local library be the ( ... )

Reply

orangemike August 15 2005, 15:43:40 UTC
I will admit to having a small collection on Balkan history (large by most stores standards) that is quite simply worth more to me than I could actually get for it on the market, but I don't own any great stuff prior to WWII because it's so unusual in English, that I can't rightly afford it.

Really? The market hereabouts is pretty slow in that field.

Reply

dragatheimpaler August 17 2005, 23:52:01 UTC
Here too, which is why it's worth more to me than I could get for it.

And yeah, anything decent pre-WWII or especially pre-WWI can get spendy as it's kinda rare.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up