Am I a collector or not?
I've got thousands of books. I buy what interests me, or what I
need in my researches, or what I believe will be useful as part of my general reference library such as classic English novels or translations of ancient Roman and Greek works or straight reference works. Sometimes I will buy a book merely because I like the look of the book itself. I've got a complete Crabbe that I bought simply because the Victorian binding was beautiful. I bought one of the titles in the Autonym Library put out by T. Fisher Unwin merely because I liked the unusually long and tall shape of the book. However, I never buy a book because it is rare, or because it is a certain type of book that I'm looking for (type in the sense of a particular format from a particular publisher). I never buy a book based on what I guess to be its resale value, with the idea of trading or selling it. The majority of the books I own, I've read, but that still leaves hundreds I own that I have not read. I bought them because I wanted them around in case I needed to consult their texts or wished to read them in the future. My question ... am I a book collector, or not? |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:53:14 GMT, Al Smith
wrote: My question ... am I a book collector, or not? If you have to ask, maybe it's time you faced up to a few things ? 8-) |
"Al Smith" wrote in message
... My question ... am I a book collector, or not? Bibliophile, yes; collector, no. William M. Klimon http://www.catholicbookcollector.com |
My question ... am I a book collector, or not?
Bibliophile, yes; collector, no. That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I acquire books for what's in them, not for the books themselves. |
Al Smith wrote:
My question ... am I a book collector, or not? Bibliophile, yes; collector, no. That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I acquire books for what's in them, not for the books themselves. Is the distinction between bibliophile and collector really meaningful? Are there secret collector nightclubs that you can't get in if you are just a bibliophile? -David |
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:53:14 GMT, David Bilek
wrote: Al Smith wrote: My question ... am I a book collector, or not? Bibliophile, yes; collector, no. That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I acquire books for what's in them, not for the books themselves. Is the distinction between bibliophile and collector really meaningful? Are there secret collector nightclubs that you can't get in if you are just a bibliophile? -David Certainly there's a distinction if only for the sake of clarity... Here are a couple of examples drawn from collections I've been called in to appraise: Person A loved science fiction and bought everything he could get his hands on from 1950 till his death in the late 1980s. In this vast accumulation were dozens of book club editions, tattered digest magazines, and the like, as well as a nice bound volume of UNKNOWN, and numerous subscriber copies of Fantasy Press titles and the like. It was pretty apparent to me that this gentleman made no distinction between book club editions and genuine firsts, whatever came to hand first was what he bought. As you may imagine, there were thousands of dollars worth of signed Heinlein, Russell, & Asimov in the collection. Not the condition that one would hope for, as this gentleman seemed to find dustjackets an annoyance to be tolerated rather than an integral part of the book to be taken care of. Now Person B also loved science fiction and realized he couldn't possibly buy everything, and that despite the roots of teh genre, a book published as a hardcover original had a better chance of being worthwhile than a book published as a paperback original. He set out to collect first editions of all sf books published *after* DANGEROUS VISIONS. Whether that's a valid place to start or not is something we could hash out on rec.arts.sf.written... Anyway, his collection has adhrered strictly to these guidelines and is a wonderful archive for a bibliographer as it contains any number of books that weren't marketed as speculative fiction, but certainly should be considered such. Person A has an accumulation of books. Person B has a collection. Value is irrelevant, both are probably within a couple of thousand bucks of each other in terms of value. There was a lot of thought given to Person B's collection, whereas Person A was buying reflexively. Another example of a very nice accumulation would be the lot of books that author John Updike just sold. It's a rare writer that doesn't accumulate a ton of books just in the normal course of research and an author of Updike's stature is going to be sent complimentary copies of damn near everything in hopes that he may make some kind remarks about a book that may be reproduced. I'm sure that there are any number of fine first editions, review copies with notes in Updike's hand, presentation copies and the like that are worth a fortune. Was it a collection or an accumulation? Pretty clearly the latter... Cheers, John www.darksidepress.com |
John Pelan wrote: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:53:14 GMT, David Bilek wrote: [...] Person A loved science fiction and bought everything he could get his hands on from 1950 till his death in the late 1980s. In this vast accumulation were dozens of book club editions, tattered digest magazines, and the like, as well as a nice bound volume of UNKNOWN, and numerous subscriber copies of Fantasy Press titles and the like. It was pretty apparent to me that this gentleman made no distinction between book club editions and genuine firsts, whatever came to hand first was what he bought. As you may imagine, there were thousands of dollars worth of signed Heinlein, Russell, & Asimov in the collection. Not the condition that one would hope for, as this gentleman seemed to find dustjackets an annoyance to be tolerated rather than an integral part of the book to be taken care of. Now Person B also loved science fiction and realized he couldn't possibly buy everything, and that despite the roots of teh genre, a book published as a hardcover original had a better chance of being worthwhile than a book published as a paperback original. He set out to collect first editions of all sf books published *after* DANGEROUS VISIONS. Whether that's a valid place to start or not is something we could hash out on rec.arts.sf.written... Anyway, his collection has adhrered strictly to these guidelines and is a wonderful archive for a bibliographer as it contains any number of books that weren't marketed as speculative fiction, but certainly should be considered such. Person A has an accumulation of books. Person B has a collection. Value is irrelevant, both are probably within a couple of thousand bucks of each other in terms of value. There was a lot of thought given to Person B's collection, whereas Person A was buying reflexively. [...] Now, sir, you are reverting to your customary habit of trying to generalize from your personal preferences and by so doing create rules we collectors all must abide by. Both the people in your examples would be book collectors, of course. The basic difference is that the first person is the sort or collector some might view as disorderly or haphazard in his approach to collecting. The second was a more orderly and more formal collector. But one is as much a collector as the other. The fact that the second person obviously meets with your approval while the first does not changes nothing important. By the way, there are a number of good reasons for science fiction book collectors to desire book club editions. For one thing, often new and outstanding cover art is commissioned for the book club edition. One example is Robert Silverberg's DOWNWARD TO THE EARTH. In that case, no less an illustrator than Frank Frazetta was commissioned to produce a cover illustration specifically for the book club edition. (Nelson Doubleday, 1970) The powerful work of art which resulted has become one of the more famous science fiction illustrations. That is not the only example, of course. In fact, many book club editions feature better cover art than the first trade edition can boast. Of course, I agree there is such a thing as a "book accumulation." Some people simply have pack-rat habits when it comes to books, so please don't interpret my remarks to suggest that there is no such thing as a "book accumulator" as opposed to a book collector. However, I get the distinct impression that you use the term "book accumulator" pejoratively regarding actual collectors: "*I* am a book collector, but 'B', who annoys me, is a book ACCUMULATOR." Mr. Palmer Book Room 314 Cheers, John www.darksidepress.com |
|
wrote
Now, sir, you are reverting to your customary habit of trying to generalize from your personal preferences and by so doing create rules we collectors all must abide by. Now, palmjob, you have reverted to your customary habit of drawing an erroneous, illogical conclusion and attempting to support it using fallacious arguments. I think those bleach fumes have rotted your brain. Happy Festivus! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CollectingBanter.com